Compiled by Sara Perry

The new incarnation of The Doors aka “The Doors of the 21st Century”, aka “D21C” and as of August 5, 2005, “Riders On The Storm” filed an Appeal to the Statement Of Decision and Permanent Injunction on Sep 16, 2005.

The decision to file an Appeal was brought up when Martin Popoff interviewed Ray Manzarek following the Court’s decision on July 21, 2005:

MP: Are you going to fight it?
RM: “No, the judge came down with the decision. All we can do is, if we want to, is appeal. And an appeal is….during the trial, if the judge has made errors, or if in his judgment he made errors, they can be reversed. But if he didn’t make an error, it can’t be reversed. So not, being an attorney, I don’t know. We’d have to consult attorneys.”

Following the Decisions passed down by the Court on July 21, the media picked up the story offering limited commentary from both Plaintiffs and Defendants:

PLAINTIFFS

“It didn’t have to come to this. We asked (Manzarek and Krieger) in January 2003 to respect that 50 percent of the partnership disagreed with what they were doing…..”
--Jeffery Forer, Morrison attorney, San Diego Reader, July 25, 2005.

“I’m just so happy that the legacy of the true Doors, and Jim Morrison in particular, has been preserved by this decision.” “I’m very pleased that, in my opinion, the legacy is preserved. I never intended for Ray and Robby to stop playing – they’re great musicians. I hope Doors fans keep going to see them – it’s just the name is owned by me and them and the estate of Jim Morrison, and they kinda ran off with stolen property.”
--John Densmore, Heavy Metal, Hard Rock Radio, July 25 2005.

“John has always held as his primary motive to preserve the legacy of the band.” “This wasn’t filed for economic reasons, it was to stop them from calling themselves The Doors.”
--S. Jerome Mandel, Attorney, AP News, AZ Central, July 25 2005

“They’re playing Doors songs and calling themselves the Doors of the 21st Century. I kinda think it’s the 19th Century, it’s looking back,” said Densmore, who plays original music with his own band Tribal Jazz.”
--John Densmore, Showbiz On-Line July 25 2005.

“I think our lead singer would be happy.”
--John Densmore, Rolling Stone Jul 25 2005.

DEFENDANTS:

RM: “We can’t use the name The Doors in any way, shape or form. “For the rest of my life. Forever and ever and ever. Judge Pinky Allercon said that…that’s his nickname….Gregory Allercon.”
MP: "Is that just for here in Canada?"
RM: “We’re D21C, eh eh? (laughs) Like it says on Ty’s drums. D21C. So that’s who we are now.”
MP: "Are you guys going to be working on new music?"
RM: “Yeah, maybe. Yeah, we might. We’ve got some things; we’re talking about it. We’re in composition. We’re going to continue playing and work on some new music, and that’s what the future holds.”
--Ray Manzarek, interview with Martin Popoff, Hard Rock On-Line Aug 2 2005.

Mike Ross in his article, “Long Live The Lizard King” included this comment; The Doors of the 21st Century were even sued by Jim Morrison’s parents – which really scares Manzarek:
“I thought they were dead! Didn’t Jim say his mother and father are dead? So the fact that we’re also being sued by dead people, whoa…”
--Ray Manzarek interview with Mike Ross, Edmonton Sun Jul 24 2005

“I take it as a real insult for people to say, ‘Well, you’re just doing this for the money….God, can’t we do it just to play the songs? Robby and I want to play, It’s like, listen, I’m not going to be doing this for too much longer – don’t you get it?”
--Ray Manzarek interview with Mike Bell, Calgary Sun July 23 2005

In a bizarre twist of the ordinary the Washington Post reported in their article, “Re-Opened Doors: Another Wallow In The Mire” that Ray “Manzarek who looks fabulous for a 66-year old rocker, slandered Densmore again and again from the stage, and urged fans to surf to a Doors Web site, to e-mail character and sexual slurs to his former mate.”

In a similar protest an exonerated Ian Astbury told fans at an undisclosed Riders concert, “If you wanna see this show again get on the f---ing internet, get on the Doors website, get on John Densmore’s Forum room. Let them know what’s f---ing going on, let them know what you’ve seen tonight. You know what to do if you want to see this again. You gotta get out there and support it.” (cashmoneyuploads.com)

It would seem all of the rants and raves from both Plaintiffs and Defendants following the decision were pale in comparison to the documents being drafted prior to the Accounting hearing set for September 16, 2005. Attorney’s for each side were poised with their own axe to grind.

As the media met their deadlines so did accountant for the Defense, Alan Goldman who was busy compiling figures as requested by the Court in the Statement of Decision. Mr. Goldman offered the Court a declaration that states, “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.”

Regardless of Mr. Goldmans’ declaration the Plaintiffs did not agree with the accounting figures provided by the Defense as shown in their “Objection” document filed August 22, 2005 which states in part:

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

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

“Although many of the revenues relating to that band’s activities have been identified by the Court in paragraph 32 of its Statement Of Decision, in response to the Court’s Order for an accounting the Defendants have not identified a single additional dollar of revenue from those activities. Not a single operating expense of the touring and related activities of “The Doors of the 21st Century” has been provided in response to the Court’s ordered accounting.” (Plaintiffs Objection To Defendants “Accounting” and Plaintiffs’ Request for Gross Receipts – Filed Aug 22 2005 – Pages 4 & 5, Paragraphs 2 & 3.)

At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s “Objection” attorney’s stress what they believe should be forthcoming:

“For the reasons set forth, and especially given Defendants’ conscious decision not to provide any proper accounting of profits, as directed by the Court, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Manzarek and Krieger be ordered to pay over to Plaintiffs the gross amount of their revenues from touring and related activities, as demonstrated by the evidence adduced to date and presented at the September 16, 2005 hearing.” (Plaintiffs Objection To Defendants “Accounting” and Plaintiffs’ Request for Gross Receipts – Filed Aug 22 2005 – Page 11 – Paragraph 2.)

A “Tentative Ruling” was submitted by Judge Alarcon following a September 7th hearing which contains his views of a discussion between Plaintiffs and Defendants:
Defendants contend that Goldman should not have to bring documents previously provided. The deposition of Goldman demanded the production of documents in 72 different categories. Goldman and Defendants invited counsel to copy numerous document and plaintiffs did so. This subpoena would require Goldman to once again search for, identify and produce thousands of pages previously made available to Plaintiffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court ordered the disgorgement of any profits that were made through the use of the names. All of the document requests seek information relevant and necessary to the determination of those figures. Defendants may have profited from use of the name even if the name ceased to be used after July 22. The requests are limited to revenues earned from a band including these Defendants. Plaintiffs do not object to Goldman summarizing or indicating which documents have already been produced, provided that there is back-up of those documents. Only Document request Number 11 seeks net worth of D21C. This request should seek only the assets or earnings statement. (Tentative Decision On Motion To Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum of Alan Goldman – dated Sep 15 2005 – Page 2 & 3 – Paragraphs 1-9 – Adopted in “Notice Of Ruling” filed Sep 20, 2005)

IN CONCLUSION:

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

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

Dated this 15th day of September 2005
Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon
Superior Court Judge

(Tentative Decision On Motion To Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum of Alan Goldman – dated Sep 15 2005 – Page 4 – Paragraph 1 – Adopted in “Notice Of Ruling” filed Sep 20, 2005)

Within hours of the “Notice Of Ruling” of Sep 15, 2005 Defendants filed an Appeal on the morning of Sep 16, 2005.

The Los Angeles Superior Court website offers information in regards to filing an Appeal in a Civil case. “An appeal is not a re-trial. New testimony and exhibits are not allowed. An appeal should not be made simply because a party thinks that they should have been believed or their opponent disbelieved. It is beyond the scope of the appellate court to re-decide a case by re-weighing the existing evidence. Filing a Notice of Appeal does not stop the enforcement of a judgment. A plaintiff who has obtained a judgment may attempt to collect money or remove a tenant even though an appeal is filed.”

At the time this article was published the Case Summary for BC289730 is still shown as “Pending.”