CA entertainment company excluded in amended suit


A San Diego, California resident engaged in the entertainment business is not a necessary party to a lawsuit over a failed concert of the English reggae and pop band UB40 in Guam and Saipan in 2015, according to the owner of a local entertainment company.

Steven Brownstein, owner of Steven Brownstein Entertainment, said a plaintiff is not required to sue all of the conspirators since coconspirators are jointly and severally liable for all damages caused.

Based on this, an absent co-conspirator is not a required party under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, said Brownstein in explaining why he did not include Fredrick Holloman as a defendant in his amended lawsuit.

Holloman, a resident of San Diego, was engaged in the entertainment business through an entity known as Shae Entertainment Management in La Jolla, California.

In April 2017, Brownstein sued Jason H. Aldan and Holloman and 10 unnamed co-defendants for allegedly defrauding his company of $115,000 by misrepresenting to have the UB40 perform in Guam and Saipan in 2015.

Brownstein was unable to serve Holloman with process in the original lawsuit.

Last November, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona dismissed Brownstein’s two claims of fraud and unjust enrichment against Aldan.

Last January, Brownstein filed his first amended complaint.

The amended complaint had the same causes of action in the original case—fraud and unjust enrichment—against Aldan and 10 unnamed co-defendants. It contains more details, but removes Holloman as one of the defendants.

Brownstein, through counsel Steven P. Pixley, asked the court to hold Aldan and co-defendants liable to pay him unspecified damages.

Aldan then filed a motion to join Holloman in the lawsuit as a necessary party.

In Brownstein’s response to the motion, Pixley said Aldan’s argument runs counter to the longstanding principle that joint tortfeasors need not be joined in one action.

Joint tortfeasors refer to two or more individuals whose negligence in a single accident or event damages another person.

Pixley said Aldan acknowledges that Brownstein’s claims are legally grounded upon an alleged conspiracy between Aldan and Holloman.

Indeed, Pixley said, this conspiracy allegation is expressly alleged in Brownstein’s first amended complaint.

Pixley said Brownstein, however, does not dispute that Holloman’s joinder is feasible as argued by Aldan in his motion.

In citing the background of the case, Pixley said Aldan met with Brownstein on Saipan in May 2015, in which they discussed the promotion of a performance by UB40 on Saipan and Guam.

Aldan agreed to put the deal together. Aldan introduced Brownstein to Holloman. Brownstein never met Holloman face-to-face.

On June 2, 2015, Brownstein entered into a contract with Holloman to provide various services relating to the performance of UB40 on Saipan and Guam.

Brownstein wired the sum of $75,000 on June 2, 2015, to Holloman.

At a conference call on July 21, 2015, with Holloman, Aldan, and one Mark Lamica to discuss the concert, Aldan allegedly represented to Brownstein that he would need to send an additional $37,000 to Holloman.

Brownstein wired $37,000 to Aldan’s account in Hawaii. Aldan allegedly wired these funds to Holloman.

On Jan. 26, 2016, Brownstein learned that the funds to secure UB40’s performance had not been paid. Pixley said Aldan was evasive when asked about this.

In his motion to dismiss the claims against him, Aldan, through counsel Robert T. Torres, asserted that Brownstein has not alleged any facts to show that he benefited.

Ferdie De La Torre | Reporter
Ferdie Ponce de la Torre is a senior reporter of Saipan Tribune. He has a bachelor’s degree in journalism and has covered all news beats in the CNMI. He is a recipient of the CNMI Supreme Court Justice Award. Contact him at

Related Posts

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.