Neville L. Johnson (SBN 66329) Douglas L. Johnson (SBN 209216) Arun Dayalan (SBN 225255) JOHNSON JOHNSON LLP 439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975?1095 Email: nj dj ohnson@j llplaw.com adayalan@j llplaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Alexandra Trent COPY L, ORIGINAL FILED Sugarlor Court of Gallfornle ummtv of L09. hoot:an JUN 122018 I ?in, mm to uuwlm'il?k Show N. 3? By: xV.? - - maul! Moses Snip SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS AN GELES ALEXANDRA TRENT, an individual, Plaintiff, VS. BRAVO MEDIA, LLC, a New York L1m1ted L1ab111ty Company; AUTHENTIC ENTERTAINWNT, LLC, a Delaware Limited L1ab111ty Company JEFF LEWIS, an mdmdual?; GAGE EDWARD, an individual; and DOES - 20, incluswe, Defendants. CaseNo.: 367 09 81 4 COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATION OF CAL. PENAL CODE 632; 2. VIOLATION OF CAL. CIVIL CODE 1708.8; . INTRUSION UPON . INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 5. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE and DECLARATORY RELIEF no.) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COPY COMPLAINT Plaintiff Alexandra Trent (?Trent?) complains and alleges on information and belief as follows: 1. There are some people in our society who will go to any length necessary to succeed, get attention and get ratings no matter who is hurt along the way, even if it is the woman who gave birth to their child. This case presents that exact scenario. As alleged herein, Defendants filmed Trent?s genitalia without her knowledge and against her express prohibition while she gave birth and then made crude and disgusting remarks about her genitalia and grooming in the pursuit of ratings. The highest levels of privacy are medical and sexuality and Defendants managed to violate both levels with their egregious conduct committed against the woman who gave birth to Defendants Jeff Lewis and Gage Edward?s child. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Alexandra Trent (?Plaintiff or ?Trent?) is an individual residing in the County of Butte, State of California. 3. Defendant Bravo Media, LLC is (?Bravo?) is, and at all relevant times was, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of New York that has its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles. 4. Defendant Authentic Entertainment, LLC is, and at all relevant times was, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware that has its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles. 5. Defendant Jeff Lewis (?Lewis?) is, and at all relevant times was, an individual who resides in the County of Los Angeles. 6. Defendant Gage Edward (?Edward?) is, and at all relevant times was, an individual who resides in the County of Los Angeles. 7. Trent is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, each defendant named herein was the agent and/or employee of the other co?defendants, and at all times were and are acting within the COMPLAINT purpose and scope of such agency and/ or employment, and with the permission and consent of his/its co?defendants with knowledge, authorization, permission, consent, and/ or subsequent rati?cation and approval of each co?defendant. Trent is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each named and unnamed defendant knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to harm Trent and to cause the damages described herein. Trent is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each named and unnamed defendant aided and abetted the other defendants in committing the statutory Violations and torts alleged herein. 8. Defendants Does 1 through 20 are sued herein by ?ctitious names for the reason that their true names are unknown to Trent. Trent will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these Defendants when the same have been ascertained. Trent is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that these ?ctitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the actions and damages alleged herein. 9. Bravo, AE, Lewis and Edward may hereinafter be referred to collectively as ?Defendants.? GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Trent works in the insurance ?eld and was a surrogate mother for Lewis and Edward. 11. Lewis and Edward are veteran reality television performers whose reality television show Flipping Out (the ?Show?) has been on the Bravo TV network since in or about July 2007. The Show recently completed its tenth season in or about October 2017. Lewis is an Executive Producer on the Show. 12. Flipping Out is centered on defendant Jeff Lewis and his business of ??ipping? houses as well as interior design. It also involves his project manager 2 COMPLAINT Jenni Pulos, his housekeeper Zoila Chavez and his romantic partner Gage Edward, who is also Lewis? business manager. 13. AE is a production company based in Burbank, California that produces television shows, including Zipping Out, that air on cable television channels, including Bravo, Discovery Channel and Showtime. l4. Bravo is a cable television program service of NBCUniversal and it broadcasts various popular ?reality? televisions shows such as Zipping Out, The Real Housewives franchise and 0p Chef. 15. On or about January 7, 2015, Trent met Lewis and Edward for purposes of her potentially serving as a surrogate mother for the same-sex couple after answering a classi?ed ad on a surrogacy website posted anonymously by Lewis and Edward through their attorney. Trent drove to Orange County, California from Butte, California to attend the meeting. 16. The meeting was supposed to be informal at a local restaurant in Orange County, California, but when she arrived at the restaurant, she was shown a five?page, single-spaced release (hereinafter ?Release?) by AE at the valet stand that she was required to sign in order to meet Edward and Lewis. Prior to the meeting, Trent was never told that she would have to Sign'the Release. 17. AE told Trent that Lewis and Edward needed Trent to sign the Release because they wanted to ?lm the meeting at the restaurant. 18. Trent was not provided suf?cient time to read the Release and was told by AE that the Release only covered the meeting at the restaurant that was taking place that day and nothing else. 19. Based upon the representation by AE that the Release she was presented at the valet stand of the restaurant would only pertain to the meeting that very same day, Trent signed the Release so she could attend the meeting for which she drove all the way to Orange County, California. 3 COMPLAINT 20. Trent attended the meeting solely because she wanted to be a surrogate for a couple who could not have childrenthe Show and had no interest in having the Show depict personal details of her life. 21. Lewis, Edward and AE employees, who acted on behalf of AE and in furtherance and congruence with AE and Bravo?s instructions, assured and represented to Trent that Lewis and Edward were only interested in having Trent be their surrogate and that Trent?s personal life would not be a Show subject. 22. In reliance on Defendants? representations, Trent agreed to be Lewis and Edward?s surrogate. 23. On two occasions, however, Trent was asked to have certain medical procedures (during the course of her pregnancy) ?lmed and broadcast for the Show. Trent expressed her reservations of being ?lmed while receiving medical treatment. Trent made it explicitly clear, however, that she did not want her reproductive organs ?lmed or broadcast, and did not want the birth ?lmed and/or broadcast. Trent made this demand clear and in the presence of Lewis, Edward, AE and Trent?s doctor. Lewis, Edward and AE assured Trent that Defendants would not ?lm the birth for the Show. This assurance was also made in the presence of Trent?s doctor. 24. Based on Lewis, Edward and assurances and representations, Trent only agreed to be ?lmed for the Show on these other two occasions because the ultrasounds were performed from the outside of her abdomen and (ii) these Defendants convinced her that the ?lming would be bene?cial to highlight surrogacy as an option for those who were not able to have children on their own. For those reasons, she consented to being ?lmed on these two occasions by signing Release addendums and HIPAA release forms on each occasion. 25. Defendants assured Trent through telephone conversations and emails that any additional procedures after the ultrasounds that Defendants wanted ?lmed 4 COMPLAINT for the Show, including the birth, would involve separate Releases for Trent to voluntarily Sign if she agreed to the ?lming. 26. Unlike what happened with the two occasions where she did give consent to be ?lmed during medical procedures, Defendants never presented Trent with an appearance release or HIPAA release form (and Trent never signed an appearance release form or a I-IIPAA release) for the birth of the child. This is because Trent made it clear that she would not allow the birth to be ?lmed or broadcast she did not want any personal details of her life to be on the Show. 27. At the time of the birth, there was no agreement to ?lm the birth in any capacity. Instead, Lewis, Edward and AE told Trent that they would not ?lm the birth for any purpose a representation that was made in the presence of and heard by Trent?s doctor. 28. Despite their representation, assurances and promises that they would not ?lm the birth, AE surreptitiously ?lmed it from behind a curtain, with the knowledge and approval of Lewis and Edwards. Trent and her doctor were not aware the birth was being ?lmed. 29. Bravo broadcast the birth on the Show using the footage obtained by AB. 30. The birth was never supposed to be ?lmed, let alone broadcast. The parties herein never contracted to allow the birth to be a part of the Show. In fact, the parties speci?cally agreed that the birth would not be ?lmed or broadcast on the Show. 31. Trent detrimentally relied on Lewis, Edward and representations that the birth would not be ?lmed or broadcast. Trent never would have agreed to be a surrogate mother for Edward and Lewis had she known the birth would be ?lmed and/ or broadcast. 32. Trent was unaware that the birth was ?lmed or broadcast until she was 5 COMPLAINT at a business networking event when a business associate informed her that the birth was broadcast. Further, to her utter horror and dismay, she also was told that Lewis had made disgusting comments about her body on the Show. 33. After learning the birth was broadcast, Trent then watched the episode and clips made available on Bravo?s website. Trent was horri?ed to discover that the Show broadcast Trent?s naked legs and blurred-out vagina as the baby emerges, which Trent explicitly told Lewis, Edward and AE was off limits. In a voice?over interview that plays while the birth is taking place, Lewis states: ?Had I known, if I was a surrogate and I had known that there was going be an audience, I probably would have waxed.? Lewis goes on to state that Trent had a ?big? vagina and then smirks. 34. Defendants, and each of them, are complicit and acted in concert in the unauthorized displaying of Trent?s genitalia on the Show and for making disgusting remarks about Trent?s genitalia on the Show. Each Defendant took part in this conduct and had a role in allowing these unauthorized and despicable acts to occur. 35. In their quest for ratings, Defendants have deeply damaged Trent and have caused incredible anguish, self-loathing, contempt and depression. 36. Trent has suffered considerable emotional distress damage resulting from Defendants? invasion of privacy and from the statements made by Lewis about Trent on the Show. Trent is shocked and disgusted that Defendants ignored her express prohibition on ?lming the birth and broadcasting the birth. Defendants? conduct is particularly egregious considering Trent was acting as Lewis and Edwards? surrogate mother and was giving birth to their child while they were Violating her privacy. Consequently, Trent has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, shame and embarrassment. 37. In addition, Trent has suffered economic damages resulting from her having to cancel a surrogacy contract she had with another couple because she was 6 COMPLAINT so distraught over her experience with Lewis and Edward. 3 8. Additionally, Trent lives in a small town and has anxiety when she leaves her house out of fear of being recognized. Trent has even been approached by strangers who recognize her from the Show which serves as a constant reminder of her humiliation and Defendants? intrusion into her privacy. 39. Due to Defendants? reprehensible actions, users continue to comment about Trent?s body and physical appearance on Bravo?s website. Trent, through counsel, demanded that Bravo take down the clip and episode displaying the birth, but Bravo refused and continues to maintain these offensive and unauthorized clips on the Bravo website, thereby exacerbating the damage to Trent every minute these clips are made available to the public. 40. The broadcast of Trent?s genitals on television, which was done Without the knowledge, consent, or permission of Trent, has been profoundly and deeply hurtful and humiliating to Trent. Trent was very upset and depressed when she learned about the broadcast and the disgusting comments made by Lewis. She is worried about how this broadcast might affect her later in life and whether people she interacts with have seen it. This has caused Trent to have increased anxiety. 41. Lewis, Edward, AE and Bravo formed a conspiracy to deceive Trent about the ?lming and broadcasting of the birth. Defendants, and each of them, had the common purpose of invading her privacy to ?lm the birth because they knew that they would achieve increased ratings of the Show as a result. Defendants, and each of them, conspired to have camera men and cameras that were employed by and owned, respectively, by Defendants, surreptitiously enter the delivery room and ?lm the birth from behind a curtain unbeknownst to Trent and her doctor. Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert to broadcast the birth on the Show without securing prior authorization from Trent to ?lm the birth and in contravention of the representations previously made to Trent that the birth would 7 COMPLAINT not be ?lmed or broadcast. 42. Defendants? actions have injured Trent and have caused her severe emotional distress. Thus, Trent has been damaged in an amount that will be determined at trial. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CAL. PENAL CODE 632 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 43. All allegations previously alleged in paragraphs lthrough 42 are re- alleged and incorporated herein by reference as though set out fully herein. 44. Defendants used a hidden electronic recording device to record audio and video of Trent without her consent while giving birth. 45. Trent expected that her communications and actions in the delivery room would be con?ned thereto and she had a reasonable expectation of privacy that her conversations and actions would not be overheard or recorded by a hidden electronic recording device. 46. As a proximate result of the illegal recording, Trent has suffered damages in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court, including, but not limited to emotional distress damages. 47. Trent seeks all damages she is entitled to under California Penal Code 63 7.2. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CAL. CIVIL CODE 1708.8 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 48. All allegations previously alleged in paragraphs lthrough 47 are re- alleged and incorporated herein by reference as though set out fully herein. 49. Defendants constructively invaded Trent?s privacy when they attempted to capture and did capture visual images, sound recordings and other 8 COMPLAINT physical impressions of Trent, who was engaged in a private and/or personal activity, through the use of a hidden visual and auditory enhancing device. The manner in which Defendants acted was highly offensive to a reasonable person. The visual images, sound recordings and other physical impressions could not have been obtained without a physical trespass into the delivery room unless a visual or auditory enhancing device was used. 50. Trent had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her private affairs and concerns. 51. Defendants directed, solicited, induced or caused AE to invade Trent?s privacy. 52. As a proximate result of the violation, Trent has suffered damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court, including but not limited to emotional distress damages. 5 3. Trent seeks all damages she is entitled to pursuant to Civil Code l708.08(d) and including damages for each violation. 54. Defendants? acts complained of herein were for a commercial purpose, and, as a result, Trent seeks the disgorgement of proceeds or other consideration obtained as a result of the Violation of Civil Code 1708.08. 55. Defendants? conduct as described herein was done with a willful and conscious disregard of Trent?s rights, and was done with the intent to vex, harass, injure and annoy her. Defendants? acts constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code ?3294, entitling Trent to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. 9 COMPLAINT THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION (Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 56. All allegations previously alleged in paragraphs 1through 55 are re- alleged and incorporated herein by reference as though set out fully herein. 57. While Trent was giving birth, Defendants intentionally intruded into Trent?s solitude by surreptitiously ?lming Trent and the birth without her knowledge or consent. 58. Defendants? intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person in that Defendants deceived Trent when they represented to her that the birth would not be ?lmed and then surreptitiously recorded Trent while giving birth. 59. Trent had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the delivery room where she gave birth and Defendants intentionally intruded into the delivery room with a hidden camera and surreptitiously ?lmed the birth from behind a curtain without her consent. 60. These disgusting acts constitute substantial intrusion upon seclusion of Trent, particularly considering she speci?cally communicated to Defendants her fears and express prohibition on ?lming the birth. 61. The acts of Defendants were willful and intentional or done with the knowledge that there was a substantial certainty that the surreptitious ?lming would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 62. These acts were done without the consent of Trent and were a substantial factor in causing injury to Trent. 63. Defendants? acts were the actual and proximate cause of Trent?s injuries, including the emotional distress Trent has suffered because of this intrusion into her private life. Trent has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but which is in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. 1 COMPLAINT r?4 b?4 v?k i?A r?A?r?t i?t 64. Defendants? conduct as described herein was done with a willful and conscious disregard of Trent?s rights, and was done with the intent to vex, harass, injure and annoy her. Defendants? acts constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code ?3294, entitling Trent to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 65. All allegations previously alleged in paragraphs lthrough 64 are re- alleged and incorporated herein by reference as though set out fully herein. 66. Defendants AE, Lewis and Edward committed an extreme and outrageous act by ?lming Trent?s body, including her genitals, during child birth without her knowledge and despite her express prohibition. AE, with the knowledge and consent of Lewis and Edward, concealed that it was ?lming the birth and Trent?s body by hiding behind a curtain. Lewis and Edward knew that AE was ?lming the birth and did nothing to stop AE from doing so. In addition, on information and belief, Lewis and Edward were aware that the birth would be broadcast on the Show in direct contravention to the agreement and assurances they made with Trent. 67. Defendants AE, Lewis and Edward committed an extreme and outrageous act by knowingly and intentionally lying to Trent about not ?lming or broadcasting the birth on the Show. 68. Defendant Lewis committed an extreme and outrageous act by making disgusting comments on the Show about Trent?s vagina and grooming while she gave birth to his child. 69. Defendant Bravo committed an extreme and outrageous act by 1 1 COMPLAINT broadcasting Trent?s body, including her genitals, during child birth without her knowledge and despite her express prohibition and (ii) Lewis? disgusting comments about Trent?s vagina and grooming. 70. Defendants were aware that Trent would be horrified to learn that the birth was ?lmed and then broadcast but deliberately ignored Trent?s rights and feelings and committed the acts alleged herein anyway. 71. The acts of Defendants, and each of them, were done with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing Trent emotional distress. The recording and broadcasting of Trent?s body and Lewis? disgusting remarks regarding Trent?s genitalia and grooming were substantially certain to cause any rational person to suffer emotional distress and it did cause Trent to suffer severe emotional distress. 72. The filming and broadcast of the birth and Trent?s genitalia were done without Trent?s consent and against her express prohibition and were a substantial factor in causing Trent?s harm. 73. Defendants? acts were the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress suffered by Trent. Trent has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but which is in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. 74. Defendants? conduct as described herein was done with a willful and conscious disregard of Trent?s rights, and was done with the intent to vex, harass, injure and annoy her. Defendants? acts constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code ?3294, entitling Trent to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS (Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 75. All allegations previously alleged in paragraphs 1 through 74 are re- 12 COMPLAINT alleged and incorporated herein by reference as though set out fully herein. 76. While Trent was giving birth to Edward and Lewis? daughter, Defendants, without prior authorization, ?lmed the birth for purposes of broadcasting it on the Show. 77. The birth was shown on the Show to millions of viewers. Defendants showed unauthorized images of Trent?s genitalia and made crass and disgusting remarks about the size of her genitalia and her grooming thereby publicizing private information concerning Trent. 78. This unauthorized display of Trent?s genitalia is not a legitimate public concern. It is solely a private matter regarding matters of the utmost privacy. 79. The acts of Defendants were done intentionally and willfully and with either the knowledge of or a reckless disregard that the publicization of this private event would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 80. These acts were done without the consent of Trent and were a substantial factor in causing Trent?s harm. 81. Defendants? acts were the actual and proximate cause of Trent?s injuries, including the emotional distress Trent has suffered from the public disclosure of private facts. Because of Defendants? acts, Trent has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but which is in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. 82. Defendants? conduct as described herein was done with a willful and conscious disregard of Trent?s rights, and was done with the intent to vex, harass, injure and annoy her. Defendants? acts constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code ?3294, entitling Trent to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. 1 3 COMPLAINT SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD (Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 83. All allegations previously alleged in paragraphs 1 through 82 are re- alleged and incorporated herein by reference as though set out fully herein. 84. Defendants, and each of them, as part of the conspiracy alleged herein, have committed at least four variations of fraud. Fraud in the Execution (aka Fraud in the Factum) 85. On or about January 7, 2015, Trent met Lewis and Edward for purposes of her acting as a surrogate for the couple after answering a classi?ed ad on a surrogacy website posted anonymously by Lewis and Edward through their attorney. Trent drove to Orange County, California from Butte, California to attend the meeting. 86. The meeting was supposed to be informal at a local restaurant in Orange County, California, but when she arrived at the restaurant, AE gave her the Release by AE at the valet stand and told her that she was required to sign it in order to meet Lewis and Edward. AE also told Trent that Lewis and Edward needed Trent to sign the Release because they intended on filming the meeting at the restaurant. 87. Prior to the meeting, no one told Trent that she would have to sign a Release to meet Lewis and Edward in order to become a surrogate for Lewis and Edward. 88. Trent was not provided suf?cient time to read the Release and was told by AE that the Release strictly covered the meeting at the restaurant that was taking place that day and nothing else. 89. Based upon the representation by AE that the Release she was presented at the valet stand of the restaurant would only pertain to the meeting that 14 COMPLAINT very same day, Trent signed the Release so she could attend the meeting for which she drove all the way to Orange County, California. 90. Trent alleges herein that the Release does not pertain to Defendants? ?lming of the birth and any conduct arising from the ?lming of the birth. Trent did not sign any release to allow Defendants to ?lm and/or broadcast the birth. It was communicated by Trent and understood by Defendants, and each of them, that the delivery room in which the birth would take place would not be a part of the Show, speci?cally that the actual birth of the baby would not be ?lmed and/or broadcast on the Show. 9 1. Because the Release does not pertain to the ?lming of the birth, any contention by Defendants that it does pertain to the ?lming of the birth necessarily means that the Release was procured through fraud as Defendants misrepresented to Trent that the Release would only pertain to the meeting that took place on January 7, 20 5. 92. Trent reasonably relied on Defendants? representation that the Release would only pertain to the January 7, 2015 meeting and would not have signed it had she known that Defendants would attempt to use the Release as the legal basis to ?lm and/or broadcast the birth on the Show. Fraudulent Inducement 93. AE mispresented to Trent that the Release would only pertain to the January 7, 2015 meeting. This representation was false when made as Defendants have attempted to use the Release as the legal basis to ?lm and/or broadcast the birth on the Show. 94. 9 AE knew that its representation was false when made because it intended from the beginning that the Release would pertain to ?lming and broadcasting Trent beyond the January 7, 2015 meeting. 95. Trent was not aware of intentions or belief that the Release was 1 5 COMPLAINT not limited to the January 7, 2015 meeting. 96. Defendants intended to defraud and induce Trent to sign the Release. 97. Trent actually and justi?ably relied on the representations made by Defendants on January 7, 2015 to her detriment. She never would have signed the Release had she known that Defendants intended to use it as the legal basis to allow them to film and broadcast the birth on the Show. Intentional Misrepresentation per Cal. Civil Code 8 1710(1) 98. Trent attended the meeting at the restaurant solely because she wanted to be a surrogate for a couple who could not have childrenthe Show and had no interest in having the Show depict personal details of her life. 99. Lewis, Edward and AE employees, who acted on behalf of AE and in furtherance and congruence with AE and Bravo?s instructions, assured and represented to Trent that Lewis and Edward were only interested in having Trent be their surrogate and that Trent?s personal life would not be part of the Show. 100. Defendants intentionally misrepresented the fact that Defendants, and each of them, intended from the beginning to film and/ or broadcast the birth on the Show. 101. Defendants? representations to Trent that they would not ?lm and/or broadcast the birth on the Show were false each time they were made. 102. Defendants knew that their representations were false when made and/ or they made the representations recklessly and without regard for the truth. 103. Defendants intended for Trent to rely on their misrepresentations and Trent did in fact rely, reasonably, on their representations. 104. Trent was harmed by Defendants? intentional misrepresentations as she suffered humiliation, embarrassment, severe emotional distress and has had her career adversely impacted. 105. Trent?s reliance on Defendants? misrepresentations was an actual and 16 COMPLAINT proximate cause of the harm she suffered. Negligent Misrepresentation 106. This variation of fraud is pled in the alternative to fraud by intentional misrepresentation. Trent will elect her remedies at trial. 107. Defendants negligently misrepresented to Trent that the birth would not be filmed and/ or broadcast on the Show. 108. Defendants? representations to Trent that they would not film and broadcast the birth on the Show was false. 109. Defendants, and each of them, had no reasonable grounds for believing the representations to be true when they made it. 110. Defendants intended for Trent to rely on their misrepresentations and Trent did in fact rely, reasonably, on their representations. 111. Trent was harmed by Defendants? misrepresentations as she suffered humiliation, embarrassment, severe emotional distress and has had her career adversely impacted. 112. Defendants? acts were the actual and proximate cause of Trent?s injuries and damages. Trent has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but which is in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. Trent may also seek rescission of the Release. 113. Defendants? conduct as described herein was done with a willful and conscious disregard of Trent?s rights, and was done with the intent to vex, harass, injure and annoy her. Defendants? acts constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code ?3294, entitling Trent to an award of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. 1 7 COMPLAINT SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION DECLARATORY RELIEF (Plaintiff Against All Defendants) 114. All allegations previously alleged in paragraphs 1 through 113 are re- alleged and incorporated herein by reference as though set out fully herein. 115. On or about January 7, 2015, Trent met Edward and Lewis at a restaurant to discuss the potential for Trent to serve as their surrogate mother. Trent drove from Butte, California to Orange County, California to meet Lewis and Edward. 116. When Trent arrived at the restaurant, AE presented Trent with the ?ve- page, single spaced Release at the valet stand to sign before meeting Edward and Lewis. Before the meeting, Defendants never told Trent that she would have to sign a release. 117. Trent did not have a chance to read the Release and was forced to sign the Release at the valet stand in order to meet Lewis and Edward. She was also not allowed to negotiate the terms of the Release. 118. At the time AE presented the Release to Trent on January 7, 2015, AE told Trent that the Release only pertained to the meeting that day. 119. After January 7, 2015, Trent only agreed to be ?lmed on two other occasions for the Show and on both of those occasions she Signed Release addendums and HIPAA release forms. 120. Defendants knew that Trent would not agree to sign any release, agreement or addendum to an agreement that would allow Defendants to ?lm or broadcast the birth on the Show. Trent was clear that she would not sign any contract related to the birth because she refused to have the birth televised. Thus, there is no agreement, release or addendum to an agreement for the ?lming and broadcasting of the birth. 18 COMPLAINT 121. The fact that Defendants had Trent sign two separate addendums to the Release allowing them to ?lm and broadcast the two ultrasound appointments on the Show is clear indication that the Release only pertained to the meeting that took place that day. Moreover, Edward assured Trent that only the ultrasound appointments would be ?lmed, and the Release and the addendums would not cover any ?lming beyond those appointments. 122. Edward assured Trent through telephone conversations and an email that any additional medical procedures after the ultrasounds that Defendants wanted ?lmed for the Show, including the birth, would involve separate Releases for Trent to voluntarily sign if she agreed to the ?lming. Thus, the Release does not have any application to the ?lming and/or broadcasting of the birth. 123. It is anticipated, however, that Defendants will attempt to argue that the Release and/ or addendums thereto apply to the ?lming and/ or broadcasting of the birth. 124. It is anticipated that Defendants will also argue that the Release and/or addendum allows Defendants to insulate their committing intentional torts against Trent which is prohibited by California Civil Code 1668. To the extent Defendants seek to insulate their intentional torts through language of the Release, Trent requests that the Court invalidates those portions of the Release pursuant to California Civil Code 1668. 125 . Thus, an actual controversy now exists between Trent, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, with regard to whether or not the Release and/or addendums thereto apply to the ?lming and/ or broadcast of the birth and whether the Release and/or addendums thereto in whole or in part are invalid under California Civil Code 1668. 126. A judicial declaration is therefore necessary and appropriate at this time in order to determine whether the Release and/ or addendums thereto have any 1 9 COMPLAINT validity with regard to the ?lming and/or broadcasting of the birth on the Show. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. 9. For damages according to proof; . Trebling of damages as permitted by law; . Statutory damages as permitted by law; . Disgorgement of ill?gotten gainsFor pre-judgment interest; . For costs of suit; . For punitive damages; . For a judicial declaration that the Release and addendums thereto do not pertain to the ?lming and/or broadcast of the birth on the Show; For rescission of the Release; 10.For attorney?s fees pursuant to law or contract; and 11.For such other, further, or different relief as the Court ?nd just, proper and DATED: June 12, 2018 equitable under the circumstances. JOHNSO JOHNSON 20 COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. DATED: June 12, 2018 JOHNSON OHNSON LLP ?iile L. ohnson Douglas L. ohnson un Dayal A meys for laintiff, Alexa ent 21 OMPLAIN