A Whale, A Mau5 and A Suit

An agent, club owner and a Vegas high-roller walk into a club and … There’s no punch line but, by the time they all walked out, the groundwork was laid not for a bar joke but a lawsuit now wending its way through federal court.

Jesse Waits, a co-owner of XS nightclub at Wynn Las Vegas, introduced William Morris Endeavor agent Joel Zimmerman in 2011 to a high-roller named Don Johnson – who, apparently, is a big Bon Jovi fan.

They attended a Deadmau5 gig at the Vegas club, when Johnson made an unusual request via Zimmerman: He’d pay $200,000 if Deadmau5 would spin the band’s “Livin’ On A Prayer.”

Waits vouched for Johnson’s “whale” status to Zimmerman, who relayed the request to Deadmau5, and the song was played – and Johnson jumped on the stage as the background video screen flashed “Don Mother F—cking Johnson.”

After the show, Johnson apparently hit the Wynn tables before anyone could collect the $200,000.

By the time Zimmerman and Waits caught up to him, had lost a lot of money and refused to pay up.

And the next day, he was gone. Waits offered to pay $50,000 of the total, and WME paid the $150,000 balance to Deadmau5 (not named in the court documents, but identified as “Client”).

It might have ended there, had Waits not sued Zimmerman in Clark County court over a $50,000 “loan.”

WME and Zimmerman filed a counterclaim, moved the case from local to U.S. District Court, and the dirty laundry was hung out for air.

WME and Zimmerman, in their counterclaim against Waits, say the club owner was in on the $200,000 song request and knew that Johnson had no intention of paying it.

The counterclaim alleges intentional and negligent misrepresentation against Waits and Johnson, negligence against Waits, and equitable indemnity against Johnson.

The case was removed to U.S. District Court in July.

Waits and Johnson moved for dismissal, which was granted in part, denied in part and “with leave to amend” in part Sept. 26.

U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones said the agency’s counterclaims are “no more or less credible than [Waits’] claim …that he made a $50,000 oral loan with such indefinite repayment terms.

“And although it may seem odd (it does) that [WME and Zimmerman] do not seek to enforce Johnson’s alleged promise under a breach-of-contract or quasi-contract theory, that has no bearing one way or the on whether the alternative theories they have pled against [Waits or Johnson] are viable.”

The agency can either amend its complaint, drop it or settle.