UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

ESTATE OF MELVIN NOBLE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAY GENE BOLLIN, JR. d/b/a ABSOLUT 

PRODUCTION RECORDING STUDIOS, 

and PURLIE GATES a/k/a “P.G.”,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00716

Jury Trial Demanded

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants, Ray Bollin, Jr and Purlie Gates., files this Emergency Application for Ex 

Parte Temporary Restraining Order against Plaintiff, The Estate, and all persons under their 

direction, control, permission or authority from violating the Defendant Bollin’s copyright and 

property rights. To support the application, the Defendants respectfully shows the Court as 

follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, The Estate of Melvin Noble, Jr., has copied and disseminates copyrighted 

works, including the lyrics to innumerable musical compositions owned and controlled by 

Defendant Bollin. By copying and distributing those lyrics without permission, the Estate 

violates Defendant Bollin’s copyrights, unlawfully enriches itself at the expense for ignoring 

longstanding copyright law—and when it does so, there are real victims who suffer real 

consequences.

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1145
The legal and factual issues before this Court are straightforward. Defendant Bollin own 

or controls copyrights in the sound recordings. The Estate never seeks Defendant Bollin’s 

authorization or a license. This is copyright infringement. The Estate must not be allowed to 

flout copyright law. If the Court waits until this litigation ends to address what is already clear—

that the Estate is improperly using Defendant Bollin’s copyrighted works—then the damage will

be done. The Estate has already usurped Defendant Bollin’s control over the use of his works, 

denied them credit, and jeopardized their reputations. If unchecked, the Estate’s wanton copying 

will also irreversibly harm the licensing market for lyrics, Bollin’s relationships with licensees, 

and their goodwill with the songwriters they represent. 

Defendant Bollin seeks limited preliminary relief to address those harms and stem the 

Estate’s infringement while this case proceeds. As detailed below, the Estate should be ordered 

(1) to halt the release of MO3 album “Legend” on May 31st and (2) prohibited from using 

unauthorized copies of the Sound recordings or its derivatives. 

BACKGROUND

1. Defendant Ray Bollin, is an owner of Absolut Production Recording Studios. For 

several years Melvin Noble, Jr recorded and executive produced under Defendant 

Bollin’s direction. 

2. After recording, mixing and mastering, the Sound Recordings arranged under Bollin’s 

control were stored on Bollin’s computer and forwarded to M03 and Manager 

Brandon Rainwater email addresses. 

3. Recently, Manager Brandon Rainwater realized when searching his emails that he had 

copies of all music recorded with Defendant Bollin at Absolut Production Recording 

Studios (See Video titled Brandon Rainwater in MO3 email for files on USB Drive).

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 1146
4. On or about May 22, 2024, Defendant Bollin received a tip that the Estate and Empire 

Records are using derivatives works from Bollin’s copyrighted Sound Recordings. 

5. On or about May 27, 2024, the Estate and Brandon Rainwater hosted a MO3 

listening party at GVO Lounge at 3940 Rosemeade Parkway #170, Dallas, Texas 

75287, where Sound Recordings from Defendant Bollin were sampled without his 

permission (See video titled MO3 Album release party May 2024 on USB Drive).

ARGUMENT

17 U.S.C. §502(a) authorizes “[a]ny court having jurisdiction of a civil action arising 

under this title ... subject to the provisions of [28 U.S.C. §1498]” to “grant temporary and final 

injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a 

copyright.” Section 502(a) authorizes such injunctions, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 

governs the process for obtaining one. See Fla. Med. Ass’n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health, Ed. & 

Welfare, 601 F. 2d 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1979).

Rule 65 permits the issuance of a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo 

and prevent irreparable injury to the moving party. Schelske v. Austin, No. 6:22-CV-49-H, 2022 

WL 17835506, at *11,---F. Supp. 3d ---(N.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2022). A temporary restraining order 

should be issued if four elements are present: (1) the movant has a substantial likelihood of 

success on the merits of its claim; (2) the movant will face a substantial threat of irreparable 

injury if the TRO is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs and damage 

the TRO will cause the non-movant; and (4) the TRO will not have an adverse effect on the 

public interest. Id; Dearmore v. City of Garland, 400 F. Supp. 2d 894, 898 (N.D. Tex. 2005). 

With respect to copyrighted works, a court “may order the impounding, on such terms as it may 

deem reasonable ... of all copies or phonorecords claimed to have been made or used in violation 

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 1147
of the exclusive right of the copyright owner [] ... [and] of all plates, molds, matrices, masters, 

tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be 

reproduced[,]” among other things. 17 U.S.C. §503(a) (1)(A)-(B). In this case, all four elements 

required under Rule 65 are met, and preventing the Estate from releasing copyrighted Sound 

Recordings is merited. 

A. Defendants are likely to succeed on their direct copyright infringement claim.

Defendant Bollin brings claims for copyright infringement against the Estate in the 

instant lawsuit. Defendant Bollin is substantially likely to establish that the Court has jurisdiction 

over this matter and the Estate and that this is the proper venue. The Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction because this case presents a federal question and state claims that arise from a 

common nucleus of operative fact –namely, the Estate’s improper possession and claim to 

ownership of the Sound Recordings. 

“The elements of copyright infringement claim are (1) ownership of the copyright by the 

Defendant and (2) copying by the Plaintiff.” Zomba Enters., Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 

F. 3d 574, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). Importantly, “Defendants need not prove their case in full at the 

[preliminary injunction] stage.” Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC v. Marcos, 651 F. App’x 482, 485 (6th

Cir. 2016). 

Defendant Bollin and MO3 are joint-owners or exclusive licensees of copyrights in the 

Sound Recordings, “including any accompanying words,” see 17 U.S.C. §102(a)(2), and each 

Sound Recording was timely registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Defendant Bollin’s 

copyright registrations are prima facie evidence of both copyright ownership and validity. 

Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F. 3d 522, 533-34 (6th Cir. 2004) 17 

U.S.C. § 410(c). At this stage, Defendant Bollin sworn declaration as to their ownership and 

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 1148
identification of copyright registration numbers are enough to show likelihood of success on this 

issue. See, e.g., Marcos, 651 F. App’x at 485.

There can be no dispute that the Estate has copied the Sound Recordings without 

Authorization. [C]opying is “shorthand for any infringement on one of the copyright owner’s 

exclusive rights.” Brittney Gobble Photography LLC v. Wenn Ltd., 2017 WL 10188859, at *4 

(E.D. Tenn. Sept. 5, 2017) (citation omitted). Only a copyright owner may reproduce, distribute, 

publicly display, or prepare derivative works based on its copyrighted work, or authorize others 

to do so. 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1)-(3), (5). Violation of any one of those rights establishes 

infringement and warrants a preliminary injunction. See King Recs., Inc. v. Bennett, 438 

F.Supp.2d 812, 850 (M.D. Tenn. 2006). The Estate cannot in good faith deny that it copied the 

Sound Recordings. 

By providing unlicensed copies of the Works to its users, the Estate violates Defendant 

Bollin’s reproduction, distribution, and display rights. Defendants “may establish an inference of 

copying by showing (1) access to the allegedly-infringed work by the Plaintiff[] and (2) a 

substantial similarity between the [] works at issue.” R.C. Olmstead v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 

F.3d 262, 274 (6th Cir. 2010). By showing “striking similarity” between the copyrighted work 

and the defendant’s use, a plaintiff “carries the burdens of proof that the infringing work is 

sufficient[ly] similar . . . and that the plaintiff must have had access.” Murray Hill Publ’ns, Inc. 

v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312, 317 (6th Cir. 2004).

Defendant Bollin is also substantially likely to succeed in showing the Estate is infringing 

copyrights belonging to Bollin. By the Estate’s actions alleged above, the Estate (acting 

individually and/or by and through his agents and/or representatives) infringed the Defendant 

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 1149
Bollin’s federally registered copyrights. Specially, the Estate has infringed Defendant Bollin’s 

copyrights in the works registered at Registration Numbers SRu001469560 (“All Right” and 9 

other unpublished works) and SRu001469535 (“I’m The Man” and 9 other unpublished works). 

The Estate has copied and distributed one or more Unreleased Recordings featuring the Vocal 

Tracks and Musical Compositions for purposes of soliciting the sale thereof to the public. The 

Estate’s actions constituted willful infringement of Defendant’s copyrights inasmuch as he knew, 

or had reason to know, that their actions constituted copyright infringement because they know 

that they have no complete authorship or ownership rights in the Vocal Tracks and Musical 

Compositions, and copied and distributed them anyway, for personal gain. Based on the 

foregoing, the Defendant Bollin is substantially likely to succeed in demonstrating the Estate 

infringed Bollin’s copyrights. 

In addition to the foregoing, presumptively, and at a minimum, Defendant Bollin owns a 

copyright interest in the Musical Compositions registered jointly as a coauthor. Defendant Bollin 

contribute in any way to the creation of the Musical Compositions and has copyright interests 

therein as a coauthor. 

B. Defendant Bollin will face a substantial threat of irreparable injury if a temporary 

restraining order is not granted.

“When a movant seeks an injunction under the Copyright Act, the Movant establishes a 

rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm when the Movant shows that a valid copyright has 

been infringed.” Hydraflow Indus. NZ Ltd. v. Individuals, No. 1:22-CV-962-LY, 2022 WL 

16625792, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2022) (citing Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. 

Scoreboard Posters, Inc., 600 F.2d 1184, 1187 (5th Cir. 1979)). A rebuttable presumption of 

irreparable harm arises in this case, where the Defendant has shown through affidavit testimony 

that the Estate is improperly in possession of copyrighted material belonging to Defendant 

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 1150
Bollin. Defendant Bollin is harmed if the Estate releases the album with Defendant Bollin’s 

material. Defendant Bollin cannot monetize the material is released without his permission or a 

licensing agreement.

C. Defendant Bollin’s threatened injury outweighs any injury to the Estate.

This application poses no injury to Plaintiff. In filing this Application, the Defendants 

simply requests that the Court order Plaintiff and any person or entity acting in concert with them 

be restrained from selling, copying, and/or any composition including Vocal Tracks from Sound 

Recordings, attempting to do any of these things, or asking anyone else to do any of these things. 

The Defendants’ requested TRO, if granted, will simply preserve the status quo ante the instant 

dispute.

D. The requested temporary restraining order will not adversely affect the public 

interest. 

Public policy weighs in favor of granting the Defendants’ requested relief. For one, “the 

Copyright Act permits the entry of an injunction to restrain violations of [the] act[], 17 U.S.C. § 

502, and authorizes an order impounding infringing goods and articles.” PAAKline, LLC v. 

Individuals, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A”, No. 1:22-

CV-1082-LY, 2022 WL 19075333, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2022). Additionally, as the 

Defendants will show, Bollin has a valid copyright in the Vocal Tracks, and public policy weighs 

in favor of protecting the rightful owner’s copyright and property rights.

E. Ex Parte Relief.

The Defendants request the ex parte issuance of a temporary restraining order. Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 65 provides that a court may issue a temporary restraining order without 

written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney if: (1) specific facts in an affidavit 

clearly show “that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 1151
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” and (2) “the movant’s attorney certifies in 

writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” FED. R. 

CIV. P. 65(b)(1). Alternatively, ex parte relief is merited if the movant can show “notice to the 

adverse party is impossible, or ... where the adverse party is unknown or is unable to be found 

[]” or (2) “notice to the defendant would render fruitless further prosecution of the action.” First 

Command Bank v. Exner, No. 4:21-CV-621, 2021 WL 4047400, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 10, 

2021).

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Defendants pray that the Court: (a) order that the MO3 Album 

“Legend” is not released or remove infringing works; (b) order that the Estate be restrained from 

selling, or copying the Sound Recordings or asking anyone else to do any of these things; (c) 

grant the Defendants such other and further relief to which the Defendants may be justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted,

ATTORNEY JERALD DAVIS, PLLC

JERALD A. DAVIS, ESQ.

By: /s/ Jerald A. Davis

Jerald A. Davis

Attorneyjeralddavis@gmail.com

(214)-929-1911

1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 17080

Dallas, TX 75201

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

/s/ Eugene Radcliff

Eugene Radcliff

Eugene.Radcliff@gmail.com

(214)-929-1911

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 1152
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing request 

were served upon the persons listed below in the manner indicated on the date indicated.

Brent A. Turman

bturman@bellnunnally.com

Troy L. Hales

thales@bellnunnally.com

2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 740-1400

Attorney for Plaintiff

Date this the 29th day of May 2024

/s/ Jerald A. Davis

Jerald Davis, Attorney for Defendants

/s/ Eugene Radcliff

Eugene Radcliff, Attorney for Defendants

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 1153
VERIFICATION

This declaration is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746. My name is Jerald A. Davis. I am 

employed as the Attorney for the Defendants. Except where declarations of other individuals are 

cited in the briefing above, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in the Background 

section of the Defendants’ Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and state 

under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the facts states therein are true 

and correct. 

Executed on the 29 day of May, 2024.

/s/ Jerald A. Davis

____________________________

Jerald A. Davis 

Case 4:23-cv-00716-ALM Document 68 Filed 05/29/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 1154