FRANCIS ALEXANDER LL MAY 23, 2014 STATEMENT IN RESPONSE T O MEDIA INQUIRIES RECEIVED REGARDING MARINO V. USHER In Marino v. Usher, I represe nt the p laintiff Dan Marino , a talented Philadelphia-based musician who wrote, recorded, engineered, and produced the song lub Girl which was later exploited by the pop ular R B artist Usher. Usher renamed the song ad Girl and it was placed on his onfessions album which has been regarded by music critics as Usher s greatest work; it was Usher s most successful album of his career selling in excess of 10 million copies in the U.S. alone . On Wednesday, Judge Diamond issued memorandum opinions granting summary judgment for certain defendants and sanctions in that case . We will be appealing both those decisions as they are against the weight of the ev idence and the cour t gross ly misapplied the law . F or reasons I wi ll address below, as it relates to my interactio n with defend ant Wil Guice, I did nothing wrong . I was upfro nt and hon est with Mr . Guice. I acted p roperly and in ac cordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. I am confident we will be successful in bo t h appeals as the rulings are without legal merit and are premised upon gross distortions of the truth unsupported by the object ive evidence in either matter . First it must be stressed that there is no question that Dan Marino is the true author of lub Girl and ad Gi r l Judge Diamond hims elf a cknowledged this in his opinions. To that end, our mission has been partly accomplished. Gran ted, there are stil l legal issues that must be resolved; however, the public should know two things : 1) Dan Marino wrote, recorded, engineered, and produced the song lub Girl and Usher s ad Girlj and (2) while Usher and others (including Mr. Guice) have profited greatly from the songs, Dan Marino has not . Second I deeply disa gree wit h Judge Di amon d's grant of sanctions. The Cou rt made a mistake in this case . Judge Diamond granted sanctions because he somehow came to the belief that I misled one of the defendants in the case- Wil Guice. However, Judge Diamond failed to consider the objective evidence in the sanctions motion and his opinion conveys a completely inaccurate and false representation of the facts as it relates to my interaction with Mr. Guice ° Let me be abundantly clear-Mr. Guice knew that I represented the plaintiff Dan Marino; he was told multiple times he was a defendant; he ' knew what it meant to be a defendant; he signed a statement acknowledging he was a defend ant; and he was advised to revie w th at stateme nt with a lawyer be fore signing it. I have a recorded and transcribed telephone conversation, phone records, and a written and signed statement from Mr. Guice proving this-all of which Judge Diamon d incorrectly and inexplicably chose not to credit. I must stress tha t the recorded p hone cal l sho ws that after Mr. Guice reached out to me-completely on his own initiative-he wa s explici tly told multiple times, verba lly and in writing, that I r epre sent the Plaintiff and that he was a defendant. t is undisputed that Mr. Guice never voiced any confusion to me about his role in the case . Rather than relying on the unrebutted objective evidence, the Court instead relied on Mr. Guice's most rece nt self-serving testimony in which Mr. Guice conve niently stated he thought he wa s only a witness . 280 N. PROVIDENCE ROAD· MEDIA, P A 19063 · T: 215.500.1000 · F: 215.500.1005 LAW@FRANC SALEXANDER.COM · WWW.FRANCISALEXANDER.COM
