Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.

1 Page 1 of 48

1 SAMINI BLOCK APC

Bobby Samini (SBN 181796)
2 [email protected]
Benjamin M. Cutchshaw (SBN 263483)
3 [email protected]
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500
4 Costa Mesa, California 92626
5 Telephone: (949) 724-0900

6 Attorneys For Plaintiffs

BRYCEN NEWMAN; RICHARD NEWMAN; and
7 MIRACLE CHILDREN’S FOUNDATION

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11
BRYCEN NEWMAN, an individual, '25CV1736 RBM DEB
Case No.: _____________
12 RICHARD NEWMAN, an individual,
and MIRACLE CHILDREN’S
13 FOUNDATION, INC., a California COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
nonprofit corporation, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
14 AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs,
15
vs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
JASON CAMPBELL, an individual,
17 HEATHER MUDRICK CAMPBELL,
an individual, JC FILMS STUDIOS,
18 INC., a West Virginia nonprofit
corporation, BMC PRODUCTIONS,
19 LLC, a West Virginia limited liability
company, and BRIDGESTONE
20 MULTIMEDIA GROUP,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
21 company and DOES 1–50, inclusive,

22 Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.2 Page 2 of 48

1 Plaintiffs BRYCEN NEWMAN, an individual, RICHARD NEWMAN, an

2 individual, and MIRACLE CHILDREN’S FOUNDATION, INC., formerly known
3 as Miracle at Manchester Foundation Inc., a California nonprofit corporation
4 (herein referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs”), through their undersigned counsel,
5 hereby allege against Defendants JASON CAMPBELL, an individual, HEATHER
6 MUDRICK CAMPBELL, an individual, JC FILMS STUDIOS, INC., a West
7 Virginia nonprofit corporation, BMC PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a West Virginia
8 limited liability company, BRIDGESTONE MULTIMEDIA GROUP, LLC, a
9 Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1–50, inclusive (herein referred to
10 collectively as “Defendants”) as follows:
11 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
12 1. This case arises from a calculated betrayal of trust and a brazen
13 misappropriation of a family’s inspiring true story—one born from tragedy and
14 transformed into hope. Plaintiffs, including Brycen Newman, a teenage cancer
15 survivor whose miraculous recovery became a source of faith and inspiration, and
16 the nonprofit Miracle Children’s Foundation, created to honor that story and serve
17 pediatric cancer patients, bring this action to hold Defendants accountable for their
18 exploitation of Plaintiffs’ name, likeness, story, charitable identity, and intellectual
19 property for personal gain.
20 2. Through a series of false promises, concealed donations, unauthorized
21 registrations, and knowingly fraudulent accounting, Defendants orchestrated the
22 production and commercial release of Miracle at Manchester, a motion picture
23 based on Brycen Newman’s life, while stripping Plaintiffs of their rightful
24 ownership, control, and profits. Defendants secured a $150,000 charitable donation
25 under false pretenses, falsely claimed sole copyright ownership of both the
26 screenplay and the film, entered into unauthorized distribution agreements, and
27 misused Plaintiffs’ nonprofit identity to solicit additional funds and promote their
28 own ventures.
—2—
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.3 Page 3 of 48

1 3. This is not merely a case of breach of contract or unpaid royalties—it

2 is a coordinated scheme involving fraud, conversion, misappropriation of name and
3 likeness, and copyright infringement. Plaintiffs bring this action to reclaim what is
4 rightfully theirs: control over their story, their charitable mission, and the fruits of
5 their labor and generosity. They seek injunctive relief, damages, restitution, and
6 judicial declarations to prevent further harm and restore integrity to a project born
7 of faith, not fraud.
8 THE PARTIES
9 4. Plaintiff, Brycen Newman (“Newman”), is a person of the full age of
10 majority and a resident of the State of California in this district.
11 5. Plaintiff, Richard Newman (“Richard Newman”), is a person of the
12 full age of majority and a resident of the State of California in this district.
13 6. Plaintiff Miracle Children’s Foundation, formerly known as Miracle at
14 Manchester Foundation (“Miracle”), is a California not-for-profit corporation
15 having its principal place of business in Del Mar, California and received nonprofit
16 status upon formation on or about November 17, 2022.
17 7. Prior to its incorporation, the entity now known as Plaintiff Miracle
18 operated as a community-based initiative under the direction of its founder, Plaintiff
19 Richard Newman (“Richard Newman”), who is also named individually as the pre-
20 incorporation promoter herein in the alternative.
21 8. At all times relevant, Plaintiff Richard Newman acted on behalf of the
22 intended nonprofit entity in good faith reliance on the prospective incorporation and
23 executed agreements with third parties in the name of the nonprofit Miracle as the
24 “Interim President,” with full disclosure of intent and purpose as to Defendants who
25 were at all times fully aware of its pre-incorporation status.
26 9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jason Campbell
27 (“Campbell”), is a person of the full age of majority and is a resident of the State of
28
—3—
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.4 Page 4 of 48

1 West Virginia. Defendant Campbell is engaged in producing motion pictures in

2 California, including the one at issue herein.
3 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Heather Mudrick Campbell
4 (“Heather Campbell”) is a person of the full age of majority and is a resident of the
5 State of West Virginia. Defendant Heather Campbell is engaged in producing
6 motion pictures in California, including the one at issue herein and is the business
7 partner of Defendant Campbell in regard to BMC productions, LLC dba JC Films
8 Studios, Inc., personally providing her home for use as their office, providing
9 financing for the company, and co-directing its activities, inclusive of fundraising
10 and film production with Defendant Campbell. Defendants Campbell and Heather
11 Campbell are collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Campbell Defendants.”
12 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant JC Films Studios, Inc. (“JC”),
13 is a West Virginia limited not-for-profit company owned by the Campbell
14 Defendants, with its principal place of business in Bridgeport, West Virginia. JC
15 produces, markets, advertises, reproduces, and/or distributes motion pictures in the
16 State of California, including the motion picture made the subject of this matter.
17 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant, BMC Productions, LLC
18 (“BMC”), is a West Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of
19 business in Bridgeport, West Virginia. Defendant BMC produces, sells, markets,
20 advertises, reproduces, and/or distributes motion pictures in the State of California,
21 including the motion picture made the subject of this matter. Upon information and
22 belief, JC is the dba for BMC.
23 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all
24 relevant times herein mentioned, Defendant Campbell is and was the alter ego of
25 Defendant BMC dba JC, and that there exists such a unity of interest and ownership
26 between them that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual
27 no longer exist, and that if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an
28 inequitable result will follow.
—4—
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.5 Page 5 of 48

1 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the BMC
2 dba JC is, and at all relevant times was, inadequately capitalized, failed to maintain
3 corporate formalities, commingled personal and corporate funds, diverted corporate
4 assets for personal use, used the corporation as a mere shell or conduit for the
5 conduct of the individual Defendants’ business, and otherwise failed to adhere to
6 the separate existence required of a duly organized corporate entity.
7 15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant
8 Campbell exercised complete domination and control over the BMC dba JC in such
9 a manner that JC had no separate mind, will, or existence of its own, and was
10 merely the instrumentality or business conduit.
11 16. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the BMC dba JC
12 as distinct from Defendant Campbell would permit an abuse of the corporate
13 privilege and would sanction fraud, promote injustice, and permit the evasion of
14 legal obligations, including those owed to Plaintiffs.
15 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all
16 relevant times herein mentioned, Defendant Heather Campbell is and was the alter
17 ego of Defendant BMC dba JC, and that there exists such a unity of interest and
18 ownership between them that the separate personalities of the corporation and the
19 individual no longer exist, and that if the acts are treated as those of the corporation
20 alone, an inequitable result will follow.
21 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the BMC
22 dba JC is, and at all relevant times was, inadequately capitalized, failed to maintain
23 corporate formalities, commingled personal and corporate funds, diverted corporate
24 assets for personal use, used the corporation as a mere shell or conduit for the
25 conduct of Defendant Heather Campbell’s personal business, and otherwise failed
26 to adhere to the separate existence required of a duly organized corporate entity.
27 19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant
28 Heather Campbell exercised complete domination and control over the BMC dba
—5—
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.6 Page 6 of 48

1 JC in such a manner that JC had no separate mind, will, or existence of its own, and
2 was merely the instrumentality or business conduit.
3 20. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of BMC dba JC as
4 distinct from Defendant Heather Campbell would permit an abuse of the corporate
5 privilege and would sanction fraud, promote injustice, and permit the evasion of
6 legal obligations, including those owed to Plaintiffs.
7 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Bridgestone Multimedia
8 Group, LLC (“BMG”), is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
9 place of business in Tempe, Arizona. Defendant BMG sells, markets, advertises,
10 reproduces, and/or distributes motion pictures in the State of California, including
11 the motion picture made the subject of this matter.
12 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13 22. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
14 and under: (a) 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), as this matter involves an action arising under
15 Acts of Congress relating to copyrights, specifically 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and
16 trademarks, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1125; and (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), as this
17 matter involves an action asserting a claim of unfair competition which is joined
18 with a substantial and related claim under copyright and trademark law.
19 23. This Court has jurisdiction under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et
20 seq.).
21 24. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims
22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
23 25. Jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because there is
24 complete diversity of citizenship between all Plaintiffs and all Defendants, and the
25 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
26 26. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of San Diego County, California.
27 Defendants Campbell and Heather Campbell are residents of the State of West
28
—6—
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.7 Page 7 of 48

1 Virginia. Defendants JC and BMC are headquartered in West Virginia. Defendant

2 BMG is headquartered in the State of Arizona.
3 27. Defendants each conduct business in and caused harm in this district.
4 28. Plaintiffs are, and at all relevant times were, individuals or nonprofit
5 entities with protectable interests in revenues, publicity rights, and copyrights in
6 this district.
7 29. Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
8 § 1391(b), in that this is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events
9 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. The motion picture at the center of
10 this litigation, Miracle at Manchester, was produced and filmed in San Diego,
11 California, and the breach of the agreement occurred here, as Defendants are
12 subject to personal jurisdiction in this location.
13 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
14 30. Plaintiff Brycen Newman is a cancer survivor. At the age of 15, he was
15 diagnosed with brain cancer, and his journey through four surgeries spanning 40
16 hours and countless hours of chemotherapy is a testament to the strength of his
17 character and his indomitable faith. Before departing to Florida for radical
18 experimental treatment after the surgeries and standard treatment failed to stop the
19 cancer, representatives from his school, Cathedral Catholic High, invited Newman
20 to say goodbye to some students. When he arrived at Manchester Field on the
21 campus, he was stunned to find the stadium filled with the entire student body and
22 faculty, 1,600 strong, waiting to send him off. What ensued was a massive group
23 prayer with all hands stretching out, linked together over his head, occasioning a
24 great wave of warmth to spread over his body. Several days later, before the family
25 left for the experimental trials in Florida, Newman’s neurosurgeon called his
26 mother and father to return to the hospital, where he informed them all that
27 somehow, miraculously, the cancer was gone. Because of the prayer, this became
28
—7—
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.8 Page 8 of 48

1 known as the “Miracle at Manchester,” resulting in his life story becoming the
2 subject of a motion picture related to the event.
3 31. Before meeting the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC, Plaintiffs had
4 no knowledge of or any experience in the entertainment business. They had no
5 experience or knowledge of film production, sales, or distribution.
6 32. The Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC are experienced in film
7 production, with expertise in direction, sales, and distribution. Defendants
8 Campbell and JC market themselves to the public as creators of faith-based films.
9 33. Defendant BMG is experienced in the business of marketing,
10 distribution, and exploitation of motion pictures.
11 34. Upon information and belief, Defendants Campbell, JC, and BMC had,
12 before entering into the April 2022 Investment Agreement with Plaintiffs, an
13 existing and ongoing business relationship with Defendant BMG.
14 35. On April 23, 2022, Plaintiffs entered into an “Investment Agreement”
15 with Defendant JC relative to the development, production, and distribution of the
16 proposed feature film Miracle at Manchester (the “Film”), based on the life story of
17 Plaintiff Newman. The April 2022 Investment Agreement is attached hereto as
18 Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference (“Investment Agreement”).
19 36. The Investment Agreement specified that Defendant JC would produce
20 the Film “for” Plaintiffs; that Defendant JC would “manage” production and
21 distribution of the film; and that “ownership” and thereby the copyright of the Film
22 would be shared equally between Plaintiff Newman (33.33%), Plaintiff Miracle
23 (33.33%), and Defendant JC (33.33%). The Investment Agreement also specifies
24 that “all Distribution efforts will be mutually agreed” and that Plaintiffs would
25 collectively receive 66.66% of the “GROSS DISTRIBUTION RECEIPTS”
26 generated by the Film in perpetuity. The Investment Agreement also provided that
27 Plaintiffs could access and review the books and records related to the production
28 and distribution of the film upon reasonable notice.
—8—
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.9 Page 9 of 48

1 37. In an addendum to the Investment Agreement, Defendant Campbell

2 offered in writing to sell the screenplay and hence its copyright, to Plaintiffs for
3 $1,000 which Plaintiffs accepted providing the $1,000 to Defendant Campbell (see
4 Exhibit 2, confirming email and Exhibit 3, payment confirmation, each attached
5 hereto and incorporated by this reference.)
6 38. Defendant Campbell nonetheless copyrighted the screenplay in his
7 sole name, ignoring the sale (see Exhibit 4, copyright registration, attached hereto
8 and incorporated herein by this reference). Defendant Campbell, through JC, also
9 wrongfully claimed sole copyright on the Film itself.
10 39. The Film was produced by the Campbell Defendants and BMC dba JC
11 following the execution of the Investment Agreement, with pre-production and
12 production occurring in San Diego, California, in May and June 2022. Defendants
13 Campbell and JC created the script, budget, and schedule for the Film, and Plaintiff
14 Miracle provided the funding for the Film, arranging a donation of $100,000 from a
15 California foundation (“Miracle Donor”) to JC expressly for the Film costs.
16 40. Unknown to Plaintiffs, Defendant Campbell, on behalf of JC and
17 BMC, approached the Miracle Donor and secured an additional $50,000 donation
18 for the production of the film bringing the total of the donation in the amount of
19 $150,000 (“Donation”). This fact was just uncovered by Plaintiffs on May 6, 2025,
20 after receiving documentation relating thereto from the office of the Miracle Donor.
21 This documentation, inclusive of the agreement between the Miracle Donor and
22 Defendant JC (specifying that all the money was to be used for the production of
23 the Film) and a receipt from JC each for $150,000, is attached hereto as Exhibit 5
24 and incorporated herein by this reference. This additional $50,000 windfall for
25 Defendants has been concealed and never disclosed by Defendants to date
26 (“Undisclosed $50,000 Donation”).
27 41. Upon information and belief, as a result of the Donation believed to be
28 only $100,000 arranged by Plaintiffs through their Miracle Donor, the Campbell
—9—
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.10 Page 10 of
48

1 Defendants, JC, and/or BMC were not required to provide any financing for the
2 production, editing, or completion of the Film which they had budgeted at
3 $100,000. After the completion of principal photography for the film, Defendant
4 Campbell provided Plaintiffs a budget for the purported spend for the Film in the
5 amount of $126,000 on May 23, 2022 (Exhibit 6, attached hereto and incorporated
6 herein by this reference).
7 42. Upon information and belief, the post-production and editing of the
8 Film were performed by the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC, and completed in
9 August or September 2022.
10 43. Pursuant to paragraph 5(c) of the Investment Agreement, Plaintiffs
11 were entitled to inspect the books of JC and BMC upon reasonable notice. On
12 February 23, 2023, Plaintiffs sent written requests for inspection to take place on
13 March 7 or March 8 to Defendant Campbell on behalf of JC and BMC (Exhibit 7,
14 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). Defendants never
15 responded. The request was made again on February 26, 2023, but again, there was
16 no response. Thereafter, despite repeated requests to date, Plaintiffs were never
17 provided any verified financial information from the Campbell Defendants, JC, or
18 BMC regarding the cost of the Film.
19 44. Without any knowledge or approval from Plaintiffs, on August 26,
20 2022, Defendants Campbell, JC Films, and BMC filed an “Amendment to The
21 Articles of Incorporation” with the Ohio Secretary of State, changing the name of
22 “Ohio Helping Hands, Inc.,” a non-profit corporation owned exclusively by
23 Defendants Campbell, JC, and BMC, to “Miracle At Manchester Foundation, Inc.,”
24 the then name of Plaintiffs’ foundation. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is the August
25 26, 2022 “Amendment to The Articles of Incorporation”, signed by Defendant
26 Campbell holding himself out to be the president of the foundation, along with
27 Defendant Heather Campbell being named Secretary, which was owned by
28 Plaintiffs.
— 10 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.11 Page 11 of
48

1 45. Without any notice, consent or approval of Plaintiffs, in direct

2 contravention of the April 2022 Investment Agreement requiring mutual approval
3 over the distribution of the Film, Defendants BMC and BMG entered into a
4 “License and Distribution Agreement” on November 4, 2022, providing BMG
5 exclusive worldwide distribution rights to the Film (“Distribution Agreement”). In
6 this Distribution Agreement, Defendant BMC dba JC misrepresented that it retains
7 ownership of all IP and owns or controls all rights to the “title.” The Distribution
8 Agreement contains the signatures of Jason Campbell on behalf of Defendants
9 BMC and Robert L. Campbell on behalf of BMG. The Distribution Agreement is
10 attached hereto as Exhibit 9 and is incorporated herein by this reference.
11 46. In a deliberate act of deception, Campbell responded on November 20,
12 2022—after the Distribution Agreement with BMG had already been signed, stating
13 he would not discuss any distribution efforts until after the premiere of the Film
14 scheduled for December 3, 2022, thereby, on information and belief, falsely
15 implying that no such agreement had yet been executed.
16 47. Upon information and belief, Defendants commenced the worldwide
17 distribution of the Film on or about March 31, 2023, without the contractually
18 required approval of Plaintiffs.
19 48. Upon information and belief, Defendant BMG has made payments to
20 Defendants BMC and the Campbell Defendants pursuant to the unauthorized
21 Distribution Agreement.
22 49. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Defendants have failed
23 to make any payments to Plaintiffs, despite amicable demands. (See Exhibit 10 and
24 Exhibit 11, each attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.)
25 50. Defendants’ release of the Film has been advertised, distributed,
26 offered for sale, and/or sold throughout much of the United States, including this
27 judicial district.
28
— 11 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.12 Page 12 of
48

1 51. Defendants, and each of them, have never obtained a license or other
2 authority from Plaintiffs to reproduce, or to produce the life story of Plaintiff
3 Newman, distribute, and/or sell the Film, despite having actual or constructive
4 notice of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants, and each of them, continue to reproduce,
5 distribute, and/or sell Plaintiffs’ works without a license or other authority from
6 Plaintiffs.
7 52. In March 2023 through June 2023, Defendant Campbell was insisting
8 that he had expended production funding over what was then believed by Plaintiffs,
9 as represented by Defendant Campbell, to be just $100,000 from the Miracle Donor
10 (now known to be $50,000 more) in the amount of $50,000 or $60,000 above the
11 original anticipated budget of $100,000 and was demanding reimbursement for that
12 before allowing the 66.66% gross profit distribution to be paid to the Plaintiffs
13 pursuant to the Investment Agreement. A summary of the understanding between
14 the parties by Plaintiffs’ counsel Mike Arata on a March 31, 2023, call, Defendants
15 Campbell and executives for Defendant BMG, is attached hereto as Exhibit 12 and
16 incorporated herein by this reference. Plaintiffs, unaware of the additional
17 Undisclosed $50,000 Donation by the Miracle Donor, offered to let Defendants
18 recoup actual documented/verifiable out-of-pocket expenses. Still, no such
19 verification has been provided, and no review of the books has been agreed to by
20 Defendants.
21 53. After further telephone calls, regarding demands for the $50,000 or
22 $60,000 that Defendant Campbell claimed he went out-of-pocket for, on May 1,
23 2023 he summarized these expenses in an email with a purported list of recoupable
24 expenses he claimed was a “nonnegotiable number” despite the lack of the requisite
25 standard backup documentation, of $157,750 which email is attached hereto as
26 Exhibit 13, and incorporated herein by this reference. Again, no reference was
27 made to the Undisclosed $50,000 Donation. Defendant Campbell also continued to
28 ignore the fact that Plaintiffs were entitled to 66.66% of the gross revenues, i.e.,
— 12 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.13 Page 13 of
48

1 there were no provisions in the Investment Agreement to deduct expenses or

2 investments by either side to create net proceeds.
3 54. On June 19, 2023, Defendant Campbell made another email demand of
4 Plaintiffs to recoup his purported out-of-pocket expenditures, stating in pertinent
5 part: “Please find the requested THIRD-PARTY report containing the Verified
6 Expenses for the film Miracle at Manchester. JCFilms Studios Production Expense
7 Reimbursement is $61,780.00. As agreed in the contract, once the expenses are
8 recovered the proceeds from the film will be spilt as agreed between all parties in
9 the contract.” This email is attached hereto as Exhibit 14 and incorporated herein
10 by this reference, with the “third party report containing the verified expenses”
11 attached hereto as Exhibit 15 and incorporated herein by this reference. On
12 information and belief, this report was not created by an independent third-party but
13 by a non-accountant, craft services employee of Defendant Campbell, with no
14 verification whatsoever included.
15 55. Defendant Campbell, personally and on behalf of Defendant JC has
16 further misrepresented the amount of the donation, stating it to be $100,000 and not
17 the actual amount of $150,000 in an unserved complaint filed in the Harrison
18 County West Virginia Circuit Court on February 27, 2025, against Plaintiffs Miracle
19 at Manchester Foundation and Richard Newman at Paragraphs 6 and 24 therein. In
20 the complaint at Paragraph 5, he also repeated the misrepresentation that he had
21 expended $61,780 above the misrepresented $100,000 donation.
22 56. Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendants Campbell and
23 BMC dba JC have padded the accounting to fraudulently try and extort nonexistent
24 expenses from the revenues inclusive of the following: it was reported that actor
25 Dean Cain was paid $7,000 for Cain to appear at the premiere—Cain never
26 appeared; actor Eddie McClintock was paid $4,000 in cash for acting fees not the
27 reported $20,000 (although he was paid $4,000 to direct) and did not receive any
28 expense reimbursement despite the reported $2,500 reimbursement; the crew’s
— 13 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.14 Page 14 of
48

1 rental space was reported to be $3,000, when in actuality it was $1,500; and
2 Defendant Campbell stated that he paid editor Dan Farjardo $5,000 to edit but
3 reported paying him $15,000, further padding the expenses.
4 57. Defendant Campbell’s misappropriation of revenues has been aided
5 and abetted by BMG, which was placed on actual notice of Plaintiffs’ 66.66%
6 ownership and distribution rights on March 31, 2023, when Attorney Michael Arata
7 provided BMG with a copy of the Investment Agreement. Despite this, BMG
8 continued to distribute the Film and transmit revenues solely to Campbell. After
9 further demands for its share of the revenues, inclusive of a February 2, 2024,
10 demand letter to BMG (Exhibit 18) setting forth numerous specific breaches by
11 Defendants Campbell, BMC, JC, and BMG issued a notice to the parties that it was
12 freezing all distribution of revenues effective April 29, 2024, until a resolution of
13 the dispute was achieved.
14 58. Defendants’ actions as aforesaid have caused Plaintiffs to suffer
15 significant monetary damages, including loss of profits, loss of royalties, loss of
16 business opportunities, loss of business goodwill, and damage to personal and
17 business reputation. As a result of Defendants’ actions, the Foundation has been
18 deprived of substantial funds that would have been used to purchase hundreds of
19 iPads for pediatric cancer patients. Plaintiffs will continue to suffer further and
20 sustain irreparable damage unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by this
21 Court.
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23
BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT
(Ratified Pre-Incorporation Agreement)
24 (As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
25 59. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
26 fully set forth herein.
27 60. A valid and enforceable Investment Agreement exists between
28 Plaintiffs and Defendants Campbell, Heather Campbell, JC, and BMC under which
— 14 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.15 Page 15 of
48

1 Plaintiffs was entitled to receive a regular accounting for plus a 66.66% share of the
2 of gross revenues, retain 66.66% ownership and control over the copyright to the
3 Film, a covenant that Defendants would not enter into a distribution agreement
4 without Plaintiffs’ approval and audit rights over the Defendants’ books and records
5 for the Film. This agreement was entered into before the corporation was
6 incorporated, while the organization was in the process of formation.
7 61. On November 28, 2022, following successful incorporation on
8 November 17, 2022 (IRS confirmation, attached hereto as Exhibit 16 and
9 incorporated herein by this reference), Miracle, through its duly appointed Board of
10 Directors, ratified and adopted the April 2022 Investment Agreement in a validly
11 noticed and held board meeting. A true and correct copy of the Board resolution
12 ratifying the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 17 and incorporated herein by
13 this reference. Before that date, Plaintiffs had performed all executory obligations
14 on their part.
15 62. Following its ratification, Miracle undertook to continue to fully
16 perform all conditions, covenants, and obligations required of it under the
17 Investment Agreement, or such performance was excused.
18 63. The Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC breached the Investment
19 Agreement by failing to account for and pay Plaintiffs’ 66.66% share of the gross
20 revenues for the Film, entering into a distribution agreement with BMG without
21 authorization, claiming exclusive ownership by failing to include Plaintiffs’ 66.66%
22 share of the copyright registered in the sole name of Defendant JC, claiming
23 exclusive copyright ownership of the screenplay despite having sold it to Plaintiffs
24 for $1,000, and refusing to allow for an audit of the books and records for the Film.
25 64. At all times, Defendants were aware that the Investment Agreement
26 was entered into in the name of Plaintiffs’ nonprofit and acted in reliance upon
27 Plaintiff Miracle’s corporate identity.
28
— 15 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.16 Page 16 of
48

1 65. Defendants have refused to pay the compensation due, claiming that
2 the entity was not legally incorporated at the time of the Investment Agreement and
3 thus lacks standing to sue, notwithstanding the fact that they had full knowledge of
4 its pre-incorporation contracting status.
5 66. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ breaches.
6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
7
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
8 (As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
9 67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
10 fully set forth herein.
11 68. As aforementioned, Plaintiffs and Defendants Campbell, Heather
12 Campbell, JC, and BMC entered into the Investment Agreement, for which
13 Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them. Implied in the Agreement was
14 a covenant that each party would act in good faith and deal fairly with the other and
15 would not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of the other to receive the
16 benefits of the contract. This implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arises
17 by operation of law in every contract under California law.
18 69. Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
19 dealing by engaging in conduct that unfairly frustrated Plaintiffs’ right to receive
20 the benefits of the Investment Agreement, including but not limited to: failing to
21 account for and pay Plaintiffs’ share of the gross revenues for the Film, entering
22 into a distribution agreement with BMG without authorization, claiming exclusive
23 ownership by failing to include Plaintiffs’ 66.66% share of the copyright registered
24 in the sole name of Defendant JC, refusing to allow for an audit of the books and
25 records for the Film, misrepresenting and omitting material facts to induce
26 Plaintiffs into contractual performance, acting arbitrarily, capriciously, and in bad
27 faith in exercising contractual discretion, interfering with Plaintiffs’ contractual
28
— 16 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.17 Page 17 of
48

1 rights and opportunities and otherwise refusing to cooperate with Plaintiffs in

2 fulfilling the terms and purpose of the Investment Agreement.
3 70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied
4 covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in an
5 amount according to proof at trial, including but not limited to lost profits,
6 reputational harm, and consequential damages.
7 71. Defendants’ conduct was despicable and carried out with a willful and
8 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, and with fraud, oppression, or malice,
9 damaging Plaintiffs thereby and entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages
10 in accordance with Civil Code § 3294.
11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12
FRAUD
(Intentional Misrepresentation and Concealment)
13 (As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
14 72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
15 fully set forth herein.
16 73. In or about the first two weeks of July 2021, Defendant Campbell
17 represented to Richard Newman, who was speaking on behalf of Plaintiffs, that if
18 Richard Newman or Plaintiff Miracle provided Defendant Campbell $1,000, they
19 would own the screenplay to the Film. This was confirmed in an email from
20 Defendant Campbell on July 14, 2021 (Exhibit 2). In reliance upon this, Richard
21 Newman sent $1,000 by Venmo for ownership of the screenplay and the copyright
22 related thereto (Exhibit 3).
23 74. Despite the representations in the preceding paragraph, on October 26,
24 2022, the U.S. Copyright Office received from Defendant Campbell the completed
25 copyright registration application for the “Dramatic Work and Music; or
26 Choreography” titled “Miracle at Manchester” (registration# PA0002396330).
27 Defendant Campbell submitted the copyright application, under the penalty of
28 perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1001), attesting that he was the owner and sole copyright
— 17 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.18 Page 18 of
48

1 holder for the screenplay to the Film (Exhibit 4). Under the same oath, Defendant
2 Campbell attested that he was the sole holder of the “Rights and Permissions” for
3 the film, listing his name and the name and contact information of JC Films for
4 related inquiries.
5 75. On or about April 23, 2022, in the written Investment Agreement,
6 Defendant Campbell, on behalf of Defendants JC and BMC, and each of them,
7 made the following representations to Plaintiffs: they were to receive a regular
8 accounting plus a 66.66% share of the of gross revenues, retain 66.66% ownership
9 and control over the copyright to the Film, Defendants would not enter into a
10 distribution agreement without approval and were providing audit rights over the
11 Defendants’ books and records for the Film.
12 76. On multiple occasions, including but not limited to a conference call
13 with attorney Michael Arata on behalf of Plaintiffs and Richard Newman on behalf
14 of Plaintiff Miracle on March 31, 2023 with Defendant Campbell and
15 representatives of BMG, Defendant Campbell, on behalf of Defendants JC and
16 BMC, represented to Plaintiffs that he had only received a donation towards the
17 production budget for the Film of $100,000 from the Miracle Donor provided by
18 Plaintiffs and that he had to invest between $50,000 and $60,000 personally to
19 produce the Film notwithstanding the budget which Defendant Campbell created
20 and circulated after production, stating total expenses of $126,000.
21 77. Then, on June 19, 2023, Defendant Campbell sent an email to attorney
22 Michael Arata on behalf of Plaintiffs and Richard Newman on behalf of Plaintiff
23 Miracle again stating the JC Films Studios Production Expense Reimbursement is
24 $61,780, again concealing the undisclosed $50,000 donation and seeking to recoup
25 that from the gross proceeds of the Film (Exhibit 13).
26 78. At the time Defendant Campbell made these representations,
27 Defendant Campbell knew the representations were false and made them with the
28
— 18 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.19 Page 19 of
48

1 intent to deceive and defraud Plaintiffs and to induce Plaintiffs to act in reliance
2 thereon.
3 79. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant
4 Campbell also concealed and failed to disclose material facts known to Defendants
5 that were necessary to make the representations not misleading, including but not
6 limited to the fact that the Miracle Donor in actuality provided $150,000 (based on
7 the Undisclosed $50,000 Donation) and that the true and actual budget of the Film
8 was less than $100,000 as originally represented and that a significant amount of
9 the actual $150,000 provided by the Miracle Donor was actually usurped by the
10 Campbell Defendants along with all gross revenues from the Film as exploited by
11 Defendants, 66.66% of which was to be provided to Plaintiffs.
12 80. Plaintiffs, at the time said representations were made and at the time
13 Plaintiffs took the actions herein alleged, were unaware of the falsity of Defendants’
14 representations and the concealment of material facts and, in reliance on the truth of
15 said representations, and on the assumption that Defendants had disclosed all
16 material facts, acted as alleged herein, including but not limited to entering into the
17 Investment Agreement, causing the Donation for the production budget with the
18 Miracle Donor on Plaintiffs’ behalf and providing the $1,000 for the purchase of the
19 screenplay for the Film.
20 81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore on information and
21 belief, allege that the Campbell Defendants have engaged in a recurring pattern of
22 fraudulent solicitations in connection with faith-based film productions, evidencing
23 a calculated scheme to defraud investors under the guise of religious or
24 inspirational messaging. These include, but are not limited to, the following.
25 82. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore on information and
26 belief allege that the Campbell Defendants jointly solicited loans, investments, and
27 donations from their film club based in Phoenix in late March 2021, for the
28 represented purpose of bringing a film production to Phoenix entitled “Naughty or
— 19 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.20 Page 20 of
48

1 Nice.” The money, including that from Beverly Naught and many other lenders or
2 donors at $2,500 each, totaling about $22,500 for the night’s event, was never used
3 to produce this film but instead was used for other purposes, with none of the
4 money being returned. Lynn Valera of the Phoenix club also made a $15,000 loan to
5 the Campbell Defendants who have yet to repay any of it.
6 83. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore on information and
7 belief allege that the Campbell Defendants utilized a “SQUARE” credit card device
8 to take donations supposedly for the nonprofit related to venues including but not
9 limited to movie streaming, movie ticket sales and merchandise which instead went
10 directly to a personal account for the Campbell Defendants.
11 84. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore on information and
12 belief allege that the Campbell Defendants took a loan in or about July 2021 from
13 Lew Sherwood the amount of between $30,000 and $40,000 which was purported
14 to be the production budget for a film called “Halloween Heroes” which was
15 actually made for much less and generated profits. Sherwood was to receive 50% of
16 the gross profits, which has not yet occurred. Production costs were padded,
17 including the Campbell Defendants requesting Bobby Lacer to submit a fake
18 $20,000 invoice, which he refused to do. Lacer was promised compensation for
19 revising the screenplay but was never paid.
20 85. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore on information and
21 belief allege that on or about November 2021, the Campbell Defendants took a loan
22 from Tom Lareseca in the amount of $50,000 which was purported to be the
23 production budget for a film called “I Can’t Breathe” which was actually made for
24 much less. Lareseca was never repaid. Nonetheless Defendant Campbell charged
25 him another $10,000 to “buy back” the film from him and instead of relinquishing
26 title has continued to profit from streaming it on their website.
27 86. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore, on information and
28 belief, allege that the Campbell Defendants use the nonprofit Defendant JC to
— 20 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.21 Page 21 of
48

1 receive donations, which are then passed through to their personal accounts.
2 Typically, they pay for everything with cash to avoid leaving a paper trail, while
3 fraudulently failing to disclose revenues in this and their other nonprofits. For
4 instance, they stated in their 2021 IRS nonprofit filings that gross receipts were “not
5 greater than $50,000” while producing twelve movies in that year with an average
6 budget of what should have been reportable donations of at least $50,000 per film.
7 Those films were released and made revenues in excess of the donations received
8 by Defendants.
9 87. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore on information and
10 belief, allege that a 12-year-old Tennessee boy with a rare form of brain cancer
11 named Regen Morris would launch the Rootin’ for Regen movement. People
12 shaved their heads, rode motorcycles, and sent prayers and pictures from all over.
13 Regen passed away on Christmas Day 2013. In or about March 2015, Defendant
14 Campbell solicited loans and investments from Regen’s supporters and parents,
15 Dan and Tishia Morris donated $5,000 initially and then more, to produce the
16 “Rootin’ for Regen” movie. The movie was never produced, and the Morris family
17 not only never received their money back from Defendant Campbell but also had to
18 agree to repay a $10,000 investor whose loan was defaulted on by Defendant
19 Campbell.
20 88. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore on information and
21 belief allege that on or about March 25, 2022, the Campbell Defendants, at a
22 premier for their movie at Crossroads Church in Mansfield Ohio, “Chosen,” about
23 the struggles of foster children, solicited donations purportedly to purchase items to
24 create premium duffel bags full of essential items to hand out to local foster
25 children. They were to spend $100 each on the duffel bags. $10,000 was raised to
26 purchase 100 high-quality duffel bags. $7,500 was provided by Mike Lombardi at
27 the suggestion of Plaintiff Miracle founder Richard Newman. Of these 100
28 purported premium duffel bags, only eight were delivered, and not the hundred
— 21 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.22 Page 22 of
48

1 dollars per quality bag, but instead just eight cheap bags purchased from the Dollar
2 Store, mostly containing balloons. Richard Newman was compelled to repay Mike
3 Lombardi out of shame and remorse for introducing him to Defendant Campbell.
4 89. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore on information and
5 belief allege that the Campbells entered into an agreement on August 26, 2024 with
6 Michelle Chynoweth to produce a film based on her book, “The Jealous Son” with
7 Defendant Heather Campbell providing a budget in the amount of $131,350 for
8 which Chynoweth was to co-own the film with Defendant JC and share 50% of the
9 revenues after recoupment of the investment. Defendant Campbell submitted a
10 “Micro Budget Project Agreement” to SAG, indicating the budget was $20,000 or
11 less. This is a common practice of Defendants. The actress who was to play the lead
12 subsequently stated that she would not work on a project involving Defendant
13 Campbell. Based upon false information provided to SAG and “continuous
14 dishonest behavior” by Defendant Campbell, Chynoweth elected to treat the
15 contract as abandoned and requested the return of her investment, which Campbell
16 refused. Chynoweth filed a complaint against Defendants Campbell and JC in
17 Maryland, receiving a judgment in the requested amount of $30,000 against both
18 parties. No part of that judgment has been satisfied.
19 90. These prior acts, substantially similar in form and execution to the
20 fraud perpetrated upon Plaintiffs, demonstrate the Campbell Defendants’ intent to
21 deceive, knowledge of the falsity of their statements, and an absence of mistake.
22 Defendants’ repeated misuse of faith-based themes to engender trust and elicit
23 investment and donations, which are then diverted for personal use, underscores a
24 deliberate and fraudulent business practice.
25 91. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and concealment
26 was justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances.
27 92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ fraud and
28 concealment, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in an amount according to proof at
— 22 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.23 Page 23 of
48

1 trial, including but not limited to expenditures made, lost profits, ownership of the
2 copyright to the screenplay, the majority share of the copyright to the Film, and
3 reputational harm.
4 93. Defendants’ conduct was willful, malicious, and oppressive, and was
5 undertaken with the intent to injure and defraud Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are therefore
6 entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code §
7 3294.
8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
10
94. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
11
fully set forth herein.
12
95. Defendants made the above false representations or concealments in
13
the Third Cause of Action without reasonable grounds for believing them to be true.
14
96. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and concealment
15
was justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances, and they were harmed as a
16
result.
17
97. Plaintiffs have sustained damages in an amount according to proof at
18
trial, including but not limited to expenditures made, lost profits, ownership of the
19
copyright to the screenplay, the majority share of the copyright to the Film, and
20
reputational harm.
21
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 CONVERSION
23
(Against all Defendants)
98. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
24
fully set forth herein.
25
99. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were the rightful owner of, and had the
26
legal right to possess and receive, certain royalty payments derived from the
27
exploitation of the Film pursuant to the Investment Agreement, as well as the sole
28
— 23 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.24 Page 24 of
48

1 owner copyright to the screenplay and the majority owner of the copyright to the
2 Film, which all other Defendants had written notice of.
3 100. Defendants, and each of them, wrongfully exercised dominion and
4 control over said royalty payments by collecting, withholding, and failing to remit
5 such payments to Plaintiffs. Defendants Campbell and JC wrongfully exercised
6 dominion and control over the copyright to the screenplay and the majority
7 ownership of the copyright to the Film. Said actions were undertaken intentionally
8 and without Plaintiffs’ initial knowledge, and thereafter without consent or
9 authorization.
10 101. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was inconsistent with Plaintiffs’
11 ownership and contractual rights to receive said royalty payments, and to exploit
12 the copyright to the screenplay and the Film, and Defendants had no legal
13 justification or privilege to retain the funds or the copyrights.
14 102. Plaintiffs have demanded payment of the royalty amounts due and
15 relinquishment of the copyrights. Still, Defendants have failed and refused, and
16 continue to fail and refuse, to deliver such funds to Plaintiffs.
17 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts as alleged herein,
18 Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, together with
19 interest thereon at the legal rate.
20 104. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, and
21 oppressive, and justifies the imposition of punitive and exemplary damages in an
22 amount to be determined according to the proof at trial, pursuant to Civil Code
23 § 3294.
24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
26
105. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
27
fully set forth herein.
28
— 24 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.25 Page 25 of
48

1 106. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs entrusted Defendants Campbell, JC,

2 and BMC with significant responsibilities and discretion in connection with the
3 development, production, and exploitation of a motion picture based on Plaintiff
4 Newman’s personal life story and/or underlying proprietary material. Plaintiffs also
5 provided financial investment in the development and production of said motion
6 picture.
7 107. By reason of said entrustment, joint undertaking, and mutual reliance,
8 a fiduciary relationship arose between Plaintiffs and Defendants Campbell, JC, and
9 BMC. Said relationship imposed upon Defendants Campbell, JC, and BMC
10 fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, full disclosure, fair dealing, and the
11 obligation to act in Plaintiffs’ best interest, including the duty to accurately account
12 for and remit royalties or revenue shares arising from exploitation of the motion
13 picture.
14 108. Defendants Campbell, JC, and BMC breached their fiduciary duties by,
15 among other things:
16 a. Failing to provide regular or accurate reporting of revenues
17 generated from the distribution or licensing of the Film;
18 b. Concealing or failing to disclose material information regarding
19 distribution agreements, licensing deals, or exploitation revenue;
20 c. Failing and refusing to remit to Plaintiffs any portion of the
21 revenues or royalties to which Plaintiffs were entitled; and
22 d. Treating the property and interests in but not limited to the
23 copyright of the Film, of Plaintiffs as their own, and acting for
24 their self-interest at Plaintiffs’ expense.
25 109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Campbell, JC, and
26 BMC’s breach of fiduciary duties, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be
27 proven at trial, plus interest thereon at the legal rate.
28
— 25 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.26 Page 26 of
48

1 110. Defendants Campbell, JC, and BMC's conduct was willful, fraudulent,
2 oppressive, and malicious. It was carried out with conscious disregard for the rights
3 and interests of Plaintiffs, thereby justifying the imposition of punitive and
4 exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial pursuant to Civil Code
5 § 3294.
6 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
MISAPPROPRIATION OF RIGHT OF PUBLICITY
(As to All Defendants)
8
111. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
9
fully set forth herein.
10
112. Plaintiffs include an individual and a charitable foundation whose
11
name, identity, likeness, life story, and persona have commercial and reputational
12
value and are entitled to protection under both the common law and California Civil
13
Code § 3344.
14
113. Without the authorization, or consent of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and
15
each of them, knowingly and willfully used Plaintiffs’ names, likenesses, and
16
personal life stories, including the name of Plaintiff Newman and branding of
17
Plaintiff Miracle’s Foundation, in connection with the advertising, promotion,
18
marketing, and/or distribution of the Film.
19
114. Defendants undertook the unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ identities and
20
stories for the purpose of soliciting purchases, increasing commercial value, and
21
promoting their own goods, services, or business interests, and were not protected
22
by any statutory or constitutional privilege.
23
115. Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ identities was done without
24
any written or oral consent, and Plaintiffs were not compensated for such use in any
25
manner, despite their central role in the subject matter of the film and its derivative
26
works and contractual right to receive a 66.66% ownership and gross revenue
27
interest in the proceeds of the film.
28
— 26 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.27 Page 27 of
48

1 116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct,

2 Plaintiffs have suffered injury, including but not limited to emotional distress,
3 reputational harm, loss of control over their identities and stories, and the loss of
4 commercial opportunities associated with such rights, in an amount to be proven at
5 trial.
6 117. Defendants’ acts were intentional, oppressive, fraudulent, and
7 malicious, justifying the award of punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to
8 Civil Code § 3294.
9 118. Plaintiffs also seek statutory damages under Civil Code § 3344,
10 including attorneys’ fees and any other relief the Court deems proper.
11 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
UNFAIR COMPETITION (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
(As to All Defendants)
13
119. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
14
fully set forth herein.
15
120. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in unlawful, unfair, and
16
fraudulent business acts and practices, pursuant to California Business and
17
Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (the “Unfair Competition Law” or “UCL”) in
18
connection with their unauthorized and deceptive use of Plaintiffs’ names,
19
likenesses, life stories, and the identity and branding of Plaintiff Miracle, for the
20
purpose of marketing, promoting, and exploiting a motion picture and Defendants
21
JC and Campbell’s nonprofit, JC, all without Plaintiffs’ knowledge, consent, or
22
compensation.
23
121. The conduct of Defendants constitutes an “unlawful” business practice
24
within the meaning of the UCL because it violated multiple legal duties, including
25
but not limited to:
26
a. The common law and statutory right of publicity (Civil Code
27
§ 3344);
28
b. Fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs;
— 27 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.28 Page 28 of
48

1 c. Duties arising from contracts and agreements between the

2 parties; and
3 d. Civil Code provisions prohibiting conversion and fraud.
4 122. The conduct of Defendants also constitutes an “unfair” business
5 practice in that it was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and caused
6 substantial injury to Plaintiffs, including economic loss, reputational harm, and loss
7 of control over their identities and charitable mission.
8 123. The conduct of Defendants further constitutes a “fraudulent” business
9 practice within the meaning of the UCL in that it was likely to deceive the public
10 into believing that Defendants’ film and promotional materials were approved by,
11 affiliated with, or sponsored by Plaintiffs and their foundation, and that Defendants
12 had the right to exploit Plaintiffs’ stories and charitable identity.
13 124. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of
14 Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property,
15 including but not limited to their entitlement to compensation, royalties, investment
16 return, and the right to control the use of their identities and brand.
17 125. Plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief
18 pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17204, enjoining
19 Defendants from continuing the unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct alleged
20 herein, and requiring them to restore to Plaintiffs all funds and property wrongfully
21 acquired through such conduct.
22 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
MISAPPROPRIATION OF NAME (Common Law)
(As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
24
126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
25
fully set forth herein.
26
127. Plaintiffs own a protectable interest in the name and reputation of
27
Plaintiff Miracle.
28
— 28 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.29 Page 29 of
48

1 128. The Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC used Plaintiffs’ name without
2 consent to mislead the public and divert support and credibility.
3 129. Plaintiffs include a charitable foundation whose name and identity
4 have a unique reputational and emotional significance and commercial value.
5 130. The Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC, and each of them,
6 knowingly and intentionally used the name “Miracle at Manchester Foundation” in
7 connection with the advertising, marketing, distribution, and public promotion of a
8 motion picture and related fundraising or commercial efforts.
9 131. Said use by the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC was undertaken
10 without the knowledge, consent, or authorization of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs expressly
11 withdrew permission to use their name or to hold themselves out as having any
12 affiliation with Plaintiffs or their charitable foundation prior to changing the name
13 of their Ohio nonprofit to Plaintiffs’ name.
14 132. The unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ name was intended to derive
15 commercial and promotional benefits, including raising funds, enhancing the
16 marketability of the film, and generating goodwill and legitimacy for the Campbell
17 Defendants, JC, and BMC’s ventures, including fundraising for their own nonprofit,
18 JC. However, IRS records for the Campbell Defendants’ 501c3 entity, OHIO
19 HELPING HANDS INC. (EIN: 87-3289615), does not reflect a name change to
20 MIRACLE AT MANCHESTER FOUNDATION INC., but rather to a different
21 entity name, END THE WAIT FOUNDATION INC., using the same EIN.
22 133. The Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC’s acts were not incidental or
23 transformative in nature, but rather intended to mislead the public into believing
24 that Plaintiffs were affiliated with or had endorsed the Film and its distribution, and
25 to exploit the goodwill associated with the foundation and Plaintiffs’ personal
26 reputations.
27 134. As a direct and proximate result of the Campbell Defendants, JC, and
28 BMCs’ misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ names, Plaintiffs have suffered injury,
— 29 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.30 Page 30 of
48

1 including but not limited to reputational harm, emotional distress, and loss of
2 control over their identities and the charitable mission associated with Plaintiff
3 Miracle.
4 135. The acts of the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC were willful,
5 fraudulent, malicious, and oppressive, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive and
6 exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294.
7 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8
PASSING OFF / FALSE ASSOCIATION
(Common Law of California and Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.
9 § 1125(a))
10
(As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
136. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
11
fully set forth herein.
12
137. Plaintiffs, including individuals and a charitable organization known as
13
Miracle Children’s Foundation, formerly Miracle at Manchester Foundation, have
14
cultivated goodwill, trust, and public recognition associated with their identities and
15
charitable mission, including in connection with a widely known life story
16
involving miraculous recovery and community support.
17
138. The Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC knowingly used the name
18
“Miracle at Manchester Foundation” and other identifying names and information
19
associated with Plaintiffs in connection with the promotion, advertising,
20
distribution, and fundraising related to the Film and related media, and fundraising
21
efforts benefiting their nonprofit, JC.
22
139. Such use was likely to, and did in fact, cause confusion or mistake,
23
and/or deceived the public into believing that Plaintiffs had approved, sponsored, or
24
were affiliated with the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC, their motion pictures,
25
or their fundraising efforts for their nonprofit, JC or their other nonprofits. The
26
Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMCs’ conduct constitutes unlawful “passing off”
27

28
— 30 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.31 Page 31 of
48

1 and false association under the common law of California and Section 43(a) of the
2 Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).
3 140. Plaintiffs ultimately did not authorize or consent to the use of their
4 foundation name, identity, or charitable foundation’s brand in connection with the
5 Film, fundraising, or distribution activities of JC and their related nonprofits.
6 141. As a direct and proximate result of the Campbell Defendants, JC, and
7 BMCs’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Miracle has suffered and will continue to suffer
8 damage to its reputation, public goodwill, and ability to control the use and purpose
9 of their names and identities, in an amount to be determined at trial.
10 142. The Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC acted knowingly, willfully,
11 and with malice, oppression, and fraud, justifying an award of punitive and
12 exemplary damages under California Civil Code § 3294, as well as injunctive relief,
13 restitution, and any available remedies under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117.
14 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE
16 (As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
17 143. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
18 fully set forth herein.
19 144. Plaintiffs had existing and/or prospective economic relationships with
20 multiple third parties in the charitable and philanthropic sectors, including potential
21 investors, donors, and commercial media partners, which had a probability of
22 resulting in future economic benefits to Plaintiffs.
23 145. Defendants Campbell, JC, and BMC knew of Plaintiffs’ public
24 reputation, ongoing charitable operations, and commercial prospects related to the
25 real-life story underlying the Film, including the goodwill associated with the
26 Miracle at Manchester Foundation and Plaintiff Newman.
27 146. Defendants Campbell, JC, and BMC intentionally and wrongfully
28 interfered with those relationships by misappropriating Plaintiffs’ names, identity,
— 31 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.32 Page 32 of
48

1 and foundation branding, and using them in the advertising, promotion, and
2 distribution of the Film and related fundraising efforts, all without Plaintiffs’
3 ultimate consent and in violation of California law, including common law
4 misappropriation, right of publicity (Civil Code § 3344), unfair competition (Bus.
5 & Prof. Code § 17200), and false association under the Lanham Act.
6 147. As a direct and foreseeable result of the Campbell Defendants, JC, and
7 BMCs’ wrongful conduct, third parties were misled into believing that Plaintiffs
8 endorsed or participated in Defendants’ nonprofit, thereby diminishing Plaintiffs’
9 ability to control their story and charitable mission and causing actual disruption of
10 existing and potential economic relationships with donors inclusive of the Miracle
11 Donor, supporters, collaborators, and media affiliations.
12 148. Plaintiffs suffered economic harm in the form of lost donations, lost
13 business opportunities, reputational injury, and the dilution of their marketability,
14 all in an amount to be proven at trial.
15 149. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, malicious, fraudulent, and
16 oppressive, justifying the imposition of punitive and exemplary damages under
17 Civil Code § 3294.
18 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
UNJUST ENRICHMENT/COMMON COUNT: MONEY HAD AND
RECEIVED
20 (As to All Defendants)
21 150. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
22 fully set forth herein.
23 151. Within the last four years, Defendants, and each of them, received
24 money from the distribution and exploitation of the Film.
25 152. Said money, or a portion thereof, was received and held by
26 Defendants, and each of them, for the benefit of Plaintiffs pursuant to a written
27 Investment Agreement and based on Plaintiffs’ contractual right to receive 66.66%
28 of the gross revenues from the Film.
— 32 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.33 Page 33 of
48

1 153. Defendants, and each of them, have failed and refused, and continue to
2 fail and refuse, to remit said monies to Plaintiffs, despite demands.
3 154. The money received and retained by Defendants and each of them,
4 belongs to Plaintiffs, and under principles of equity and good conscience,
5 Defendants should not be permitted to retain the same.
6 155. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs
7 have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest thereon at the
8 legal rate.
9 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
(As to All Defendants)
11
156. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
12
fully set forth herein.
13
157. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs had a legally cognizable and equitable
14
interest in certain specific property, including but not limited to:
15
a. A 66.66% ownership interest in the copyright to the Film;
16
b. A 66.66% ownership interest in all gross revenues derived from
17
the distribution and exploitation of the Film in all media and
18
territories worldwide and in perpetuity; and
19
c. A right to ownership of the screenplay to the Film pursuant to a
20
written agreement and payment of consideration.
21
158. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants,
22
and each of them, wrongfully obtained or retained legal title to the above-described
23
property through fraud, concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
24
and/or unjust enrichment.
25
159. Specifically, Defendants:
26
a. Registered the copyright in the Film and/or the screenplay solely
27
in the name of Defendant JC or its affiliates, excluding
28
— 33 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.34 Page 34 of
48

1 Plaintiffs’ sole interest in the screenplay and majority interest in

2 the Film;
3 b. Collected gross revenues from the exploitation of the Film but
4 failed to account for or distribute Plaintiffs’ rightful 66.66%
5 share; and
6 c. Denied Plaintiffs access to books and records, and refused to
7 recognize Plaintiffs’ contractual and equitable interests.
8 160. As a result, Defendants are unjustly enriched and hold the subject
9 property under circumstances in which it would be inequitable and unjust for them
10 to retain it.
11 161. Plaintiffs therefore seek the imposition of a constructive trust over:
12 a. All rights, titles, and interests in the copyright to the screenplay
13 and a controlling 66.66% interest in the copyright to the Film by
14 the Campbell Defendants and JC; and
15 b. 66.66% of all gross revenues, accounts, or proceeds derived
16 from the distribution or exploitation of the Film, including any
17 monies currently in Defendants’ possession or control.
18 162. Plaintiffs further request that the Court declare Defendants as
19 constructive trustees over the identified property, and that said property be
20 transferred to Plaintiffs to prevent unjust enrichment and protect Plaintiffs’ legal
21 and equitable rights.
22 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
ACCOUNTING
(As to All Defendants)
24
163. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
25
fully set forth herein.
26
164. Plaintiffs entered into a written Investment Agreement with the
27
Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC, concerning the development, production, and
28
exploitation of the Film.
— 34 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.35 Page 35 of
48

1 165. Pursuant to said Investment Agreement, Plaintiffs are entitled to

2 receive 66.66% of all gross revenues generated from the distribution and
3 exploitation of the Film in all media, throughout the world, and in perpetuity.
4 166. Defendants, and each of them, have received monies from the
5 commercial exploitation of the Film, including but not limited to licensing fees,
6 royalties, streaming revenue, and other sources of income, which are subject to
7 Plaintiffs’ contractual revenue share.
8 167. By virtue of the parties’ agreement and the entrustment of control over
9 financial operations to Defendants, a legal and equitable relationship exists that
10 entitles Plaintiffs to an accounting of all revenues, expenditures, and profits relating
11 to the Film.
12 168. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that substantial
13 sums of money have been received by Defendants, and each of them but
14 Defendants have failed and refused to provide any meaningful or accurate
15 accounting or to remit the sums owed to Plaintiffs under the Investment Agreement.
16 169. The amounts due and payable to Plaintiffs are unknown to Plaintiffs
17 and cannot be ascertained without a full and complete accounting of Defendants’
18 financial records and transactions relating to the Film.
19 170. Plaintiffs therefore seek an order requiring Defendants to render a full
20 and complete accounting of all monies received and disbursed in connection with
21 the Film, and to pay over to Plaintiffs all amounts found to be due as a result of said
22 accounting.
23 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (17 U.S.C. § 501)
(As to the Campbell Defendants, JC, and BMC)
25
171. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
26
fully set forth herein.
27
172. Plaintiffs are the authors and rightful owners of an original screenplay
28
entitled “Miracle at Manchester” and 66.66% majority owner of the motion picture
— 35 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.36 Page 36 of
48

1 based thereon (the “Work”). The Work is an original creation fixed in a tangible
2 medium of expression and is subject to copyright protection under the Copyright
3 Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
4 173. The copyright to the screenplay has been registered with the United
5 States Copyright Office under Registration No. PA0002396330 on or about October
6 26, 2022, solely in the name of Defendant Campbell (Exhibit 4).
7 174. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 106, Plaintiffs hold the majority exclusive
8 rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, publicly perform, and
9 display the Work.
10 175. Defendants, and each of them, without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or
11 authorization, have willfully and unlawfully copied, used, reproduced, distributed,
12 displayed, and/or created derivative works based upon the Work, including but not
13 limited to producing and exploiting a motion picture based on the screenplay and/or
14 registering the copyright solely in the name of Defendant Campbell and claiming
15 full copyright ownership to the Film in the Film credits.
16 176. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts of infringement,
17 Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages, including lost revenue, reputational harm,
18 and dilution of the value of the Work, in an amount to be determined at trial.
19 177. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover statutory damages pursuant to 17
20 U.S.C. § 504(c), or, in the alternative, actual damages and any profits of Defendants
21 attributable to the infringement.
22 178. Plaintiffs are further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive
23 relief under 17 U.S.C. § 502, impoundment under § 503, and an award of costs and
24 attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.
25 179. Defendants’ acts were willful, intentional, and carried out with reckless
26 disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, justifying enhanced statutory damages.
27

28
— 36 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.37 Page 37 of
48

1 SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(As to All Defendants)
3
180. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
4
fully set forth herein.
5
181. Plaintiffs are the owners of valuable intellectual property rights and
6
contractual rights relating to the Film, including but not limited to:
7
a. A 66.66% ownership interest in the copyright in the Film and
8
100% ownership in the underlying screenplay; and
9
b. A contractual right to receive 66.66% of all gross revenues
10
derived from the exploitation of the Film;
11
182. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants,
12
and each of them, are continuing to exploit the Film and collect revenue from its
13
distribution in violation of Plaintiffs’ legal and contractual rights, including through
14
unauthorized licensing agreements and public representations of sole ownership.
15
183. Defendants have further used and continue to use Plaintiffs’ names,
16
likenesses, or charitable identity to market the Film and related ventures without
17
Plaintiffs’ consent, thereby causing ongoing reputational harm and public
18
confusion.
19
184. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs face imminent
20
and irreparable injury in the form of:
21
a. Continued diversion of funds rightfully owed to Plaintiffs; and
22
b. Loss of control over their intellectual property and identity;
23
185. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, as monetary damages alone
24
cannot fully compensate for the loss of control over copyrighted material, identity,
25
nor can they reverse reputational harm once inflicted.
26
186. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that unless
27
enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to exploit the Film, use Plaintiffs’
28
— 37 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.38 Page 38 of
48

1 identities and intellectual property, and retain revenues rightfully belonging to

2 Plaintiffs.
3 187. Plaintiffs therefore seek a preliminary and permanent injunction
4 restraining Defendants, and each of them, from:
5 a. Exploiting or distributing the Film in any manner without
6 accounting and payment of Plaintiffs’ revenue share; and
7 b. Representing themselves as sole owners of the copyright in the
8 Film or screenplay; and
9 c. Failing to provide Plaintiffs with a full accounting and to pay all
10 gross revenues to which Plaintiffs are contractually entitled.
11 188. Plaintiffs further seek such other equitable relief as the Court deems
12 just and proper, including impoundment of infringing materials and disgorgement
13 of wrongfully obtained profits.
14 SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BREACH OF CONTRACT AND
MISAPPROPRIATION
16 (As to All Defendants)
17 189. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
18 fully set forth herein.
19 190. Plaintiffs are parties to a written Investment Agreement relating to the
20 development, production, and exploitation of the Film, under which Plaintiffs
21 retained a 66.66% ownership interest in the copyright to the Film and were entitled
22 to receive 66.66% of all gross revenues derived from the Film’s exploitation, in all
23 media, throughout the world, in perpetuity.
24 191. Plaintiffs also retained proprietary and statutory rights in the name,
25 identity, likeness, and brand of the “Miracle at Manchester Foundation,” which was
26 wrongfully used by Defendants in the marketing and distribution of the Film and
27 related fundraising efforts without authorization.
28
— 38 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.39 Page 39 of
48

1 192. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants,
2 and each of them, knowingly entered into an agreement or understanding—whether
3 formal or informal—to deprive Plaintiffs of their contractual rights unlawfully and
4 to misappropriate Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works and foundation identity for
5 Defendants’ own financial gain.
6 193. In furtherance of said conspiracy, Defendants performed one or more
7 overt acts, including but not limited to:
8 a. Registering the copyright to the Film and/or screenplay solely in
9 the name of Defendant Campbell and JC, excluding Plaintiffs’
10 66.66% ownership interest in the film and the 100% interest in
11 the screenplay;
12 b. Entering into undisclosed distribution agreements and collecting
13 revenue from the Film without accounting or payment to
14 Plaintiffs;
15 c. Using the “Miracle at Manchester Foundation” name in
16 promotional, commercial, and fundraising materials after
17 Plaintiffs had withdrawn consent; and
18 d. Concealing the existence of third-party donations and revenue
19 inflows to withhold rightful shares from Plaintiffs.
20 194. Defendant BMG knew that the other named Defendants did not have
21 the rights to use Plaintiff Newman’s story, name, and image, yet they nonetheless
22 proceeded to distribute the film, ignoring that lack of documentation, even after
23 they were provided notice of such defect.
24 195. Each of the Defendants had knowledge of the wrongful acts being
25 committed and intended to participate in and further the conspiracy by actively
26 assisting, encouraging, or ratifying the conduct of their co-conspirators.
27 196. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a civil conspiracy to commit:
28
— 39 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.40 Page 40 of
48

1 a. Breach of contract, including breach of revenue-sharing and

2 audit obligations;
3 b. Misappropriation of name, likeness, and charitable identity;
4 c. Conversion of royalty payments owed to Plaintiffs; and
5 d. Fraudulent concealment of revenues and contractually material
6 facts.
7 197. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy and wrongful acts
8 committed in furtherance thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial harm,
9 including lost profits, loss of ownership control, reputational damage, and
10 emotional distress, in an amount to be proven at trial.
11 198. The acts alleged herein were willful, malicious, oppressive, and
12 undertaken with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, entitling Plaintiffs to
13 punitive and exemplary damages under Civil Code § 3294.
14 EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A))
(As to the Campbell Defendants and JC)
16
199. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
17
fully set forth herein.
18
200. Plaintiffs, including an individual and a charitable foundation formerly
19
known as “Miracle at Manchester Foundation,” had developed and maintained a
20
distinct identity, goodwill, and public association with a charitable mission based on
21
a widely known real-life story involving recovery and community support.
22
201. The public recognized the name “Miracle at Manchester” and
23
associated branding as identifiers of Plaintiffs’ foundation, charitable efforts, and
24
life story. These identifiers are inherently distinctive and serve as source identifiers
25
in commerce.
26
202. The Campbell Defendants and JC, without Plaintiffs’ authorization,
27
used the “Miracle at Manchester Foundation” name and associated identifiers in
28
— 40 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.41 Page 41 of
48

1 commerce to market, promote, and distribute a motion picture and to solicit

2 donations and support for their own nonprofit and commercial ventures.
3 203. Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ foundation name and identity falsely
4 implied endorsement, sponsorship, and affiliation by Plaintiffs, and constitutes a
5 false designation of origin within the meaning of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the
6 Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)).
7 204. Defendants’ conduct was likely to, and did in fact, cause confusion,
8 mistake, and deception among members of the public, including but not limited to
9 viewers, donors, and charitable supporters, as to the affiliation, origin, or
10 sponsorship of the film and fundraising activities.
11 205. Plaintiffs did not authorize, consent to, or approve Defendants’ use of
12 their name, brand, or charitable identity and withdrew any prior limited permission
13 that may have existed. Defendants continued their conduct despite actual
14 knowledge of Plaintiffs’ objection.
15 206. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have
16 suffered irreparable harm to their goodwill, reputation, and public identity, and have
17 been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
18 207. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to prevent further
19 misrepresentation and to prohibit Defendants from using Plaintiffs’ names or
20 likenesses in any commercial or fundraising capacity.
21 208. Plaintiffs are further entitled to disgorgement of profits, compensatory
22 damages, corrective advertising, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
23 §§ 1116, 1117, and applicable equitable principles.
24 NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Copyright Ownership/Gross Profit Entitlement)
26 (As to All Defendants)
27 209. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though
28 fully set forth herein.
— 41 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.42 Page 42 of
48

1 210. An actual and present controversy exists between Plaintiffs and

2 Defendants concerning their respective rights and obligations pursuant to the
3 Investment Agreement and the screenplay acquisition agreement, regarding the
4 ownership of copyrights and revenue interests in connection with the Film and the
5 underlying screenplay thereto (the “Screenplay”).
6 211. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that they are
7 entitled to the following rights:
8 a. Ownership of the copyright in the Screenplay by virtue of
9 contractual acquisition;
10 b. A 66.66% majority ownership interest in the copyright to the
11 completed Film pursuant to the written Investment Agreement
12 and related communications; and
13 c. A perpetual, irrevocable right to receive 66.66% of all gross
14 revenues derived from the distribution and exploitation of the
15 Film in any and all media, formats, and territories throughout
16 the world.
17 212. Defendants, and each of them, deny these rights and assert inconsistent
18 and adverse claims, including but not limited to:
19 a. Asserting sole ownership of the copyright in the Screenplay and
20 the Film;
21 b. Registering the copyright to the Film and/or Screenplay solely in
22 the name of Defendant JC without acknowledgment of
23 Plaintiffs’ ownership share; and
24 c. Failing and refusing to provide accountings or payments to
25 Plaintiffs in accordance with their 66.66% gross revenue
26 interest.
27 213. Plaintiffs contend that the parties’ rights and obligations are governed
28 by the Investment Agreement and applicable copyright law, and that Defendants’
— 42 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.43 Page 43 of
48

1 conduct gives rise to a justiciable controversy over ownership and entitlement to

2 proceeds.
3 214. Plaintiffs desire and are entitled to a judicial declaration pursuant to
4 Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 that:
5 a. Plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the copyright in the
6 Screenplay;
7 b. Plaintiffs own a 66.66% share of the copyright in the completed
8 Film; and
9 c. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive 66.66% of all gross revenues
10 from the distribution and exploitation of the Film in all media
11 and territories in perpetuity.
12 215. A declaration of rights is necessary and proper at this time to resolve
13 the legal dispute and prevent further harm to Plaintiffs’ intellectual property and
14 financial interests.
15 216. Plaintiffs accordingly request that the Court issue a judgment declaring
16 the rights of the parties as alleged above.
17 TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
18
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Corporation by Estoppel)
19 (As to the Campbell Defendants and JC)
20 217. At all times during the negotiation and execution of the Agreement,
21 Defendants knew that Miracle was acting in its corporate capacity and that it was in
22 the process of incorporation as a nonprofit charitable organization. Defendants
23 accepted this status without objection and treated Miracle as a corporation.
24 218. Defendants performed under the Investment Agreement by producing
25 the Film, after accepting the benefits thereof, including but not limited to being
26 provided $150,000 behalf of Plaintiff Miracle for production funding, receiving
27 33.33% ownership interest in the copyright to the Film and the right to receive
28 33.33% of the gross receipts of the Film.
— 43 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.44 Page 44 of
48

1 219. On November 17, 2022, Miracle was formally incorporated as a

2 California nonprofit corporation. On November 28, 2022, Miracle’s duly
3 constituted Board of Directors ratified and adopted the Investment Agreement in a
4 formal board meeting.
5 220. Thereafter, Miracle continued to fully perform or was excused from
6 performance of all obligations required of it under the Investment Agreement.
7 221. A present and actual controversy has arisen and now exists between
8 Miracle and Defendants, in that Defendants dispute or deny the enforceability of the
9 Agreement and Plaintiff’s rights thereunder, including but not limited to: gross
10 revenue participation, majority ownership of the copyright to the film, sole
11 ownership of the copyright to the screenplay, distribution agreement approval rights
12 and audit rights for the Film.
13 222. Miracle contends that:
14 a. The Agreement is valid and enforceable;
15 b. Defendants are estopped from denying Miracle’s corporate
16 capacity or its right to enforce the Agreement; and
17 c. Plaintiff is entitled to all contractual and legal rights under the
18 Investment Agreement, including any injunctive or equitable
19 relief necessary to protect its rights.
20 223. Miracle desires a judicial declaration of its rights and obligations under
21 the Agreement, and of Defendants’ corresponding obligations, so that the parties
22 may avoid a multiplicity of legal actions and resolve the existing controversy.
23 224. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate under California Code
24 of Civil Procedure section 1060 to determine the parties’ legal relations and to
25 prevent further injury, uncertainty, and irreparable harm to Plaintiff.
26

27

28
— 44 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.45 Page 45 of
48

1 TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Corporation by Ratification)
3 (As to the Campbell Defendants and JC)
4 225. The parties to the Agreement understood and intended that Miracle
5 would be incorporated as a nonprofit charitable foundation and that the Agreement
6 was entered into on behalf of the soon-to-be-formed entity.
7 226. On November 17, 2022, Miracle was formally incorporated as a
8 California nonprofit corporation. On November 28, 2022, Miracle’s Board of
9 Directors ratified and adopted the Agreement in a formal board meeting.
10 227. Thereafter, Miracle continued to fully perform or was excused from
11 performance of all obligations required of it under the Investment Agreement.
12 228. Despite the valid ratification and Plaintiff’s full performance, a present
13 and actual controversy has arisen between the parties in that Defendants have
14 denied or disputed the enforceability of the Agreement, the rights of Miracle
15 thereunder, and the obligations imposed on Defendants pursuant to its terms,
16 including but not limited to: gross revenue participation, majority ownership of the
17 copyright to the film, sole ownership of the copyright to the screenplay, distribution
18 agreement approval rights and audit rights for the Film.
19 229. Miracle contends that the Agreement is valid, binding, and
20 enforceable; that Miracle has properly ratified the Agreement in accordance with
21 California law; and that Defendants are bound by and obligated to perform their
22 respective duties under the Agreement.
23 230. Miracle desires a judicial declaration under California Code of Civil
24 Procedure section 1060 that:
25 a. The Agreement is valid and enforceable;
26 b. Miracle properly ratified the Agreement upon incorporation;
27 c. Defendants are bound by and obligated to perform under the
28 Agreement; and
— 45 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.46 Page 46 of
48

1 d. Miracle is entitled to all rights and remedies available to it under

2 the Agreement and applicable law.
3 231. Declaratory relief is necessary and proper to resolve the legal rights
4 and obligations of the parties under the Agreement and to prevent further
5 uncertainty, harm, or controversy.
6 TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
7
ALTERNATIVE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
EQUITABLE RELIEF AND RESTITUTION
8 (By Promoter on Behalf of Pre-Incorporation Nonprofit Entity)
9
(Asserted by Plaintiff Richard Newman Against the Campbell Defendants and JC)
232. Plaintiff Richard Newman is an individual who, before the
10
incorporation of Miracle at Manchester Foundation, renamed as Miracle Children’s
11
Foundation, served as a promoter and founder of the organization.
12
233. At all relevant times, Richard Newman acted in good faith and in
13
furtherance of Miracle's formation and charitable mission. He engaged in activities
14
necessary to organize the corporation, including identifying investment
15
opportunities, soliciting donors, and negotiating agreements on Miracle’s behalf.
16
234. On or about April 23, 2022, Richard Newman entered into the written
17
Investment Agreement with Defendants JC aka BMC expressly on behalf of the to-
18
be-formed nonprofit entity, Miracle, as the “Interim President”.
19
235. Defendants were fully aware that Richard Newman was acting in a
20
representative capacity for Miracle and not in his personal capacity. Defendants did
21
not object to this status and proceeded to accept and perform under the Agreement,
22
including receiving $150,000 on behalf of the Miracle Donor, making public
23
announcements, participating in the development, production, post-production, and
24
distribution of the Film.
25
236. Miracle was formally incorporated on November 17, 2022, as a
26
nonprofit public benefit corporation under California law. On November 28, 2022,
27

28
— 46 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.47 Page 47 of
48

1 Miracle’s Board of Directors ratified the Agreement entered into by Richard

2 Newman.
3 237. If the Court finds the Agreement to be legally invalid, unenforceable,
4 or otherwise incapable of being enforced directly by Miracle, Richard Newman
5 alleges this claim in the alternative to seek appropriate remedies for the benefit of
6 Miracle and to prevent unjust enrichment by Defendants.
7 238. Defendants have knowingly received and retained benefits under the
8 pre-incorporation agreement and from the actions undertaken by Richard Newman
9 and Miracle without providing the agreed consideration or otherwise fulfilling their
10 obligations.
11 239. Defendants would be unjustly enriched if permitted to retain the
12 benefits obtained through Richard Newman’s and Miracle’s efforts while avoiding
13 liability on the technical basis that Miracle was not yet incorporated at the time of
14 contracting.
15 240. Richard Newman is therefore entitled, on behalf of Miracle or in his
16 individual capacity as promoter, if necessary, to seek:
17 a. Restitution for the reasonable value of services rendered and
18 benefits conferred;
19 b. Imposition of a constructive trust over funds or assets
20 wrongfully withheld; and
21 c. Declaratory or injunctive relief to preserve Miracle’s charitable
22 interests and contractual expectations.
23 241. This cause of action is pled in the alternative, pursuant to California
24 Code of Civil Procedure § 431.10(d), to preserve the right to relief in equity should
25 the Court decline to enforce the Investment Agreement as a matter of contract.
26 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
28
— 47 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case 3:25-cv-01736-RBM-DEB Document 1 Filed 07/07/25 PageID.48 Page 48 of
48

1 i. For compensatory, general, and special damages in an amount to

2 be proven at trial;
3 ii. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof, where
4 applicable;
5 iii. For statutory damages for copyright infringement as allowed by
6 law;
7 iv. For injunctive relief restraining further unauthorized use;
8 v. For declaratory relief establishing Plaintiff’s ownership rights;
9 vi. For restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains;
10 vii. For imposition of a constructive trust over all relevant property
11 and profits;
12 viii. For a complete accounting;
13 ix. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
14 x. For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit where recoverable by law;
15 and
16 xi. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
17 proper.
18 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
19 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
20
21

22 Dated: July 1, 2025 SAMINI BLOCK APC

23

24 __________________________________
25
Benjamin M. Cutchshaw
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26

27

28
— 48 —
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF