THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUNIBIA JANE DOE (a ?ctitious name) do Cohen Cohen, PC. 1220 19th Street NW. Suite 500 Washington, DC. 20036 Plainti?', V. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC- 14350 North 87th Street, Suite 200 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Registered Agent: Corporations Creations Network, Inc. 3260 Hayden Rd. #210 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 -and- ME DC, LLC d/b/a MASSAGE ENVY SPA TENLEYTOWN #1210 4024 8th Street, NE. Washington, DC. 20017 Registered Agent: Business Filings, Inc. 1015 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC. 20005 -and- HABTAMU GEBRESELASSIE 10 Manchester Place, Apartment 204 Silver Spring, MD 20901-4214 Defendants. Civil Division FEED SEP 2 2017 Case No: Calendar No: Judge: 117'0006512. COMP COMES NOW Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through the undersigned counsel, and makes this Complaint against Defendant Massage Envy Franchising LLC, Defendant (hereinafter ?Defendant Defendant ME DC, LLC dfb/a Massage Envy Spa Tenleytown #1210 (hereinafter ?Defendant and Defendant Massage Therapist Habtamu Gebreselassie (hereinafter ?Defendant Gebreselassie.?) In Support thereof, Plaintiff Jane Doe states as follows: miss 1. Plaintiff Jane Doeis a married adult female, in her 205, residing in the District of Columbia, whose name and address are not contained in this Complaint so as to protect her privacy and identity as she incurred injuries and damages of a sensitive nature as a result. of the intentional and negligent acts of Defendants. Plaintiff Jane Doe may be contacted through her counsel. 2. There exists good cause for Plaintiff Jane Doe to use a pseudonym due to the harmful effect of the public disclosure of her identity and the harm in?icted by the Defendants. Plaintiff Jane Doe?s undersigned counsel will provide the identity of Plaintiff Jane Doe as the need evolves, and in accordance with the laws of the District of Columbia. 3. Defendant MEF is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business located in Scottsdale, Arizona. Defendant MEF is a massage and spa therapy company with approximately 1200 franchises located across the United States and is believed to be the largest employer of massage therapists nationwide. Defendant MEF is a franchisor, and granted a franchise agreement to Defendant MEDC, its franchisee. As part of its franchise arrangement, Defendant MEF provides rules and guidelines regarding all aspects of operations to Defendant MEDC, including but not limited to hiring and retention practices of its massage therapists. 4. Defendant MEDC is a District of Columbia corporation with its principal place of business located at 4926 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. 20016. 5.. Defendant Gebreselassie upon information and belief resides at 10 Manchester Place, Apartment 204, Silver Spring, Maryland 20901. Jurisdiction 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 11-921 of the DC. Code. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 13?423 of the DC. Code in that they caused a tortious injury by acts and/or omissions within the District of Columbia. 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC in that they are registered to transact business in the District of Columbia and/or do transact business in the District of Columbia. 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Gebreselassie in that he is licensed to perform massage therapy in the District of Columbia, and committed a tort within the District of Columbia. Factual Backgzound 10. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant MEDC managed, Operated, and maintained a massage spa located at 4926 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. Defendant MEDC operated its massage spa facility in accordance with its franchise agreement with Defendant MEF, 11. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff Jane Doe was a business customer of Defendant MEDC and Defendant Gebreselassie. 12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Gebreselassie was an employee, servant and/or agent of Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC working as a massage therapist. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Gebreselassie was assigned to give massages to female customers in his capacity as an employee, servant and/or agent of Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC. 13. Upon information and belief, prior to September 17, 2017, Defendant Gebreselassie sexually assaulted a female patron while working at a Massage Envy franchise in Bowie, Maryland. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC arranged for Defendant Gebreselassie to be transferred to Defendant MEDC, with full knowledge he had committed a prior sexual assault. 15. Upon information and belief, prior to September 17, 2017, Defendant Gebreselassie sexually assaulted a female patron while working at Defendant MEDC. With knowledge of this second sexual assault by Defendant Gebreselassie, Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC negligently retained him as a massage therapist and then willfully, wantonly and recklessly allowed and arranged for him to come into contact with vulnerable unsuspecting female patrons for pro?t, including Plaintiff Jane Doc. 16. On September 17, 2017, Plaintiff Jane Doe was in the ?nal 15 minutes of her 90 minute massage at Defendant MEDC located at 4926 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. At all times during the massage, Plaintiff ane Doe was undressed. Defendant Gebreselassie had placed an pillow over Plaintiff ane Doe?s eyes. Defendant Gebreselassie then moved the sheet that was covering Plaintiff Jane Doe?s pelvic area and licked her vagina without invitation, warning or consent. Plaintiff Jane Doe was in a state of shock, and immediately began pulling the sheet up to cover herself. Fearful and in shock, Plaintiff Jane Doe asked Defendant Gebreselassre what he was doing, at which point Defendant Gebreselassie grabbed Plaintiff Jane Doe?s hand, fell to his knees and apologized, begging Plaintiff Jane Doe not to ?tell anyone.? 17. Plaintiff Jane Doe pulled her hand away, and as calmly as she could, said ?we?re done here? and asked Defendant Gebreselassie to leave the room several times. Defendant Gebreselassie refused to leave the room. Plaintiff Jane Doe continued to repeat over and over, ?we?re done here? and requesting that Defendant Gebreselassie leaving the room, increasing her tone. Finally, Defendant Gebreselassie left the room. After a period of time, Plaintiff Jane Doe was taken to a local hospital, where she was administered a ?rape kit.? She also received medicine to combat sexually transmitted infections. It will take time for Plaintiff Jane Doe to learn whether, in fact, she contracted a sexually transmitted infection from Defendant Gebreselassie. l8. Defendant Gebreselassie was arrested. 19. Prior to and on or about September 17, 2017, Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC intentionally and negligently allowed Defendant Gebreselassie to have contact with its female patrons knowing that he had already sexually assaulted female patrons. 20. Defendant Gebreselassie, while an employee, servant and/or agent of Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, working within the course and scope of that employment, sexually assaulted Plaintiff Jane Doe, under the auspices of his employment duties, such that Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC are vicariously liable for Defendant Gebreselassie?s sexual assault upon Plaintiff Jane Doe. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual assault, Plaintiff Jane Doe suffered numerous damages, including but not limited to fear, emotional distress and humiliation, and she will continue to suffer such pain and suffering for the rest of her life and she will continue to incur medical, therapeutic, lost wages and related expenses. 22. The above injuries were proximately caused by the intentional battery and sexual assault of Defendant Gebreselassie and the simple and gross negligence of Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC without any contributory negligence on the part of Plaintiff Jane Doe. Count 1: Sexual Assault - Intentional Battery 23. Plaintiff Jane Doe re-states and re~alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if set forth herein. 24. On September 17, 2017, Defendant Gebreselassie sexually assaulted Plaintiff Jane Doe by licking her vagina without her invitation or consent. The sexual assault was an intentional battery. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual assault, Plaintilf Jane Doe suffered numerous damages, including but not limited to fear, emotional distress, humiliation and she will continue to suffer such pain and suffering for the rest of her life and she will continue to incur medical, therapeutic, lost wages and related expenses. The above injuries were proximately caused by the sexual assault and intentional battery committed by Defendant Gebreselassie. Count II: Negligent Hiring 26. Plaintiff Jane Doe re-states and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 27. At the time Defendant Gebreselassie was hired as an employee, servant and/or agent by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Defendant Gebreselassie was un?t to perform his assigned duties. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knew or should have known of Defendant Gebreselassie?s un?tness and proclivity for sexual assault before hiring him. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent hiring by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Plaintiff Jane Doe suffered numerous damages, including but not limited to fear, emotional distress and humiliation, and she will continue to suffer such pain and suffering for the rest of her life and she will continue to incur medical, therapeutic, lost wages and related expenses. 29. Plaintiff Jane Doe avers that Defendant Gebreselassie?s sexual assault and battery was intentional, willful and malicious. Count Gross Negligent Hiring 30. Plaintiff Jane Doe rte-states and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 31. At the time Defendant Gebreselassie was hired as an employee, servant and/or agent by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Defendant Gebreselassie was grossly un?t to perform his assigned duties. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knew or should have known of Defendant Gebreselassie?s gross un?tness and proclivity for sexual assault before hiring him. 32. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC failed to use reasonable care to avoid the sexual assault of patrons and business invitees like Plaintiff Jane Doe and were grossly negligent. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC were grossly negligent in hiring Defendant Gebreselassie when they knew beforehand he was grossly un?t to provide massage therapy services to unsuspecting, innocent female customers like Plaintiff Jane Doe. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knowingly harbored an employee, servant and/or agent whom they knew had committed sexual assault prior to September 17, 2017, and they knowingly, wantonly and with reckless disregard for patron safety exposed Plaintiff Jane Doc to a signi?cant risk 0f serious physical and harm, including a signi?cant and foreseeable risk of sexual assault. 33. The gross negligent hiring by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC and other acts and omissions described herein were willful, malicious, wanton, intentional and outrageous and constitute a reckless disregard for Plaintiff ane Doe?s safety. 34. Plaintiff Jane Doe avers that Defendant Gebreselassie?s sexual assault and battery was intentional, willful and malicious. Count IV: Negligent Retention 35. Plaintiff Jane Doe re-states and re?alleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 36. During the time that Defendant Gebreselassie was retained as an employee, servant andlor agent by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Defendant Gebreselassie was un?t to perform his assigned duties. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knew or should have known of Defendant Gebreselassie?s un?tness and proclivity for sexual assault. 37. As a direct and proximate result of negligent retention by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Plaintiff Jane Doe suffered numerous damages, including but not limited to fear, emotional distress and humiliation, and she will continue to suffer such pain and suffering for the rest of her life and she will continue to incur medical, therapeutic, lost wages and related expenses. gount V: Gross Negligent Retention 38. Plaintiff Jane Doe re-states and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 39. During the time that Defendant Gebreselassie was retained as an employee, servant and/or agent by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Defendant Gebreselassie was grossly un?t to perform his assigned duties. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knew or should have known of Defendant Gebreselassie?s gross un?tness and proclivity for sexual assault. 40. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendant MEF 311d Defendant MEDC failed to use reasonable care to avoid the sexual assault of patrons and business invitees like Plaintiff Jane Doe and were grossly negligent. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC were grossly negligent in retaining, transferring and Defendant Gebreselassie to a facility which caused Plaintiff Jane Doe to come into contact with him, when they knew beforehand he was grossly un?t to provide massage therapy services to unsuspecting, innocent female customers like Plaintiff Jane Doe. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knowingly harbored an employee, servant and/or agent whom they knew had committed sexual assault prior to September 17, 2017, and they knowingly, wantonly and with reckless disregard for patron safety exposed Plainti?? Jane Doc to a signi?cant risk of serious physical and harm, including a signi?cant and foreseeable risk of sexual assault. 41. The gross negligent retention by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC and other acts and omissions described herein were willful, malicious, wanton, intentional and outrageous and constitute a reckless disregard for Plaintiff Jane Doe?s safety. Count VI: Negligent Supervision 42. Plaintiff Jane Doe restates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 43. Once Defendant Gebreselassie was hired as an employee, servant and/or agent by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, said Defendants became aware that Defendant Gebreselassie was un?t to perform his assigned duties. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knew or should have known of Defendant Gebreselassie?s un?tness and proclivity for sexual assault. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC failed to supervise the conduct of Defendant Gebreselassie. 44. As a direct and proximate result of negligent supervision by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Plaintiff Jane Doe suffered numerous damages, including but not limited to fear, emotional distress and humiliation, and she will continue to suffer such pain and suffering for the rest of her life and she will continue to incur medical, therapeutic, lost wages and related expenses. Count VII: Eegligent Supervising 45. Plaintiff Jane Doe re-states and re?alleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 46. Once Defendant Gebreselassie was hired as an employee, servant and/or agent by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, said Defendants became aware that Defendant Gebreselassie was grossly un?t to perform his assigned duties. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knew or should have Imown of Defendant Gebreselassie?s gross un?tness and proclivity for sexual assault. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC failed to supervise the conduct of Defendant Gebreselassie. 47. Through the acts and omissions described herein, Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC failed to use reasonable care to avoid the sexual assault of patrons and business invitees like Plaintiff Jane Doe and were grossly negligent. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC were grossly negligent in failing to supervise Defendant Gebreselassie when they knew beforehand he was grossly un?t to providemassage therapy services to unsuspecting, innocent female customers like Plaintiff Jane Doe. Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC knowingly harbored an employee, servant and/or agent whom they knew had committed sexual assault prior to September 17, 2017, and they knowingly, wantonly and with reckless disregard for patron safety exposed Plaintiff Jane - . cc to a Signi?cant risk of serious and harm, including a signi?cant and foreseeable risk of sexual assault. 10 48. The gross negligent supervision by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC and other acts and omissions described herein were willful, malicious, wanton, intentional and outrageous and constitute a reckless disregard for Plaintiff ane Doe's safety. Cognt Negligent In?iction of Emotional Digit-gag 49. Plaintiff Jane Doe re-states and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 50. At the time Defendant Gebreselassie was acting in the scope as an employee, servant and/or agent by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Defendant Gebreselassie licked Plaintiff Jane Doe?s vagina during her massage. 51. It was foreseeable to Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC that such conduct would cause Plaintiff Jane Doe harm, which it did. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent in?iction of emotional distress by Defendant MEF and Defendant MED C, Plaintiff Jane Doe suffered numerous damages, including but not limited to fear, emotional distress and humiliation, and she will continue to suffer such pain and suffering for the rest of her life and she will continue to incur medical, therapeutic, lost wages and related expenses. Count IX: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 53. Plaintiff Jane Doe re-states and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 54. At the time Defendant Gebreselassie was hired as an employee, servant and/or agent by Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC, Defendant Gebreselassie engaged in conduct that was Intentional, reckless, extreme and outrageous. 11 55. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional in?iction of emotional distress by Defendant Gebreselassie, Plaintiff Jane Doe suffered numerous damages, including but not limited to fear, emotional distress and humiliation, and she will continue to suffer such pain and suffering for the rest of her life and she will continue to incur medical, therapeutic, lost wages and related expenses. Count X: Vio ation of D.C. Consumer Pr tecti ct 56. Plaintiff Jane Deere?states and re-alleges the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 57. On September 17, 2017, Plaintiff Jane Doe, Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC were in a contractual relationship for massage therapy services. The massage services contracted for on September 17, 2017 were trade practices as de?ned by D.C. Code Section 28- 3901(a)(6). Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC are merchants as de?ned by D.C. Code Section Plaintiff Jane Doe is a consumer as de?ned by D.C. Code Section 28- 3901(a)(2). 58. Plaintiff Jane Doe is entitled to the protection afforded by the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Plaintiff Jane Doe avers that Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC violated D.C. Code Section 28-3904(d) and engaged in unlawful trade practices by representing that its massage services (goods or services) were of a reasonable standard and quality when in fact they were not. Plaintiff Jane Doe to her detriment relied on said representation. 59. On and/or before September 17, 2017 Defendant MEF and Defendant MEDC recklessly, intentionally and negligently delivered consumer goods and services that were not of a reasonable standard and quality and proximately caused Plaintiff Jane Doe suffer numerous damages, Includmg but not limited to fear, emotional distress and humiliation and she will continue to suffer 12 such pain and suffering for the rest of her life and she will continue to incur medical, therapeutic, lost wages and related exPenses. Ii! WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe respectfully request judgment against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial for the damages she has suffered and will sufferer, which amount is believed to be the sum of ?ve million dollars in compensatory damages, twenty million dollars in punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys? fees, pre- judgment interest, post judgment interest, costs of suit, and such other and ?u'ther relief as this Court deems just and proper and which are permissible in the Disu'ict of Columbia. Dated: September 26, 2017 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Adam Wghton, #460184 Kim Brooks-Rodney, #405477 Wayne Cohen, #433629 Cohen Cohen RC. 1220 19th Street, NW. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-4529 Attorneys for Plainti?' 13