No Peace and Love: Miami Music Festival Organizers Clash in Federal Court
A complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida by Rapture Electronic Music Festival targets rival concert organizer, Ultra Enterprises Inc., as the groups gear to launch competing events on the same day and at the same venue.
February 04, 2019 at 03:38 PM
4 minute read
Miami's most well-known music festival has been accused of collaborating with the city to stamp out any possible competition.
Ultra Music Festival's parent companies, Ultra Enterprises Inc. and Event Entertainment Group Inc. are defendants in a federal lawsuit filed Friday in the Southern District of Florida.
The five-count complaint by plaintiff Rapture Electronic Music Festival against the companies also lists Miami and the Virginia Key Beach Trust as respondents. It alleges they conspired to undermine Rapture's event, and establish a monopoly over the city's music festival market.
The Rapture event had been scheduled to take place on Virginia Key on the same days in March as the Ultra festival. It had been scheduled for the beachside park during Miami Music Week for its 2017 and 2018 iterations. However, the Miami City Commission voted in November to approve Ultra's move to Virginia Key for March 29-31 after kicking the long-running festival from its Bayfront Park home in September.
The suit accuses the parties of attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize. Ultra Enterprises and Event Entertainment Group are singled out for engaging in tortious interference against Rapture, which is described in the complaint as “a competitor and alternative to Ultra festival.” Rapture is also seeking an injunction against Ultra to prevent its 2019 event from taking place.
|'Back-Door Deal'
Rapture's lawyer Paul Silverberg told the DBR the battle for Virginia Key “is a move by Ultra to be the only music festival” in Miami.
“Regardless of what Ultra says, you can tell by their actions that this was a backdoor deal struck to put Rapture out of business,” the Weston-based attorney said. “And there's clearly ulterior gains for the city that aren't disclosed.”
Read the complaint:
According to Silverberg, officials dismissed concerns over Rapture's application to use Virginia Key on March 29 and 30.
“The rules for the special event application process is 'first come, first serve,'” Silverberg said. “Rapture submitted its application prior to Ultra. We never heard that it was approved, rejected or withdrawn. The city is sitting on its deposit. They then took Ultra's application and approved it. What could be the possible explanation?”
Silverberg also claimed Ultra has an outsized ability to control market prices and city officials, due to its status as an international entity.
“Rapture is a local festival; Ultra is around the world. If you do lighting, you do food, you do beverage, where do you want to be in March?” Silverberg said, adding Ultra has a “huge effect on the local, international and national economy.”
“You can basically have your own month and have no competition for DJs, no competition for vendors,” he added. “That's a really strong hold.”
Requests for comment from the Virginia Key Beach Trust and Miami City Attorney Victoria Mendez were not returned by press time.
Ultra said in a statement dated Feb. 4 that “there is no merit to the recent lawsuit.”
“To claim that Ultra has violated the law is both disappointing and misplaced,” the statement read. “Ultra lawfully secured its license to host its annual production on Virginia Key, including by obtaining necessary approvals from the City of Miami Commission.”
Festival organizers reasserted their intention to hold their concerts at Virginia Key in March and offer fans “the best and most transformative music festival that we have ever produced.”
Ultra's general counsel, Sandy York, declined to offer comment beyond the company's statement.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250