1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 F By: 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 15 JANE DOE NOS. 1 - 4, inclusive, individuals; 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L 2E CI Clerk of the Suoerior Court John J. O'Brien (State Bar No. 253392) THE O'BRIEN LAW FIRM, APLC 750 B Street, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 t. 619.535.5151 e. john@theobrienlawfinn.eom Brian M. Holm (State Bar No. 255691) HOLM LAW GROUP, PC 12636 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 t. 858.707.5858 e. brian@holmlawgroup.com 9 '16 JUN 2 PR 3:29 Robert Hamparyan (State Bar No. 181934) ROBERT HAMPARYAN, APC 275 W. Market Street San Diego, CA 92101 t. 619.550.1355 e. robert@hamparyanlawfmn.com JUN 0 2 2016 udpu CASE NO.:37-2016-00019027-CU-FR-CTL COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, V. GIRLSDOPORN.COM , a business organization, form unknown; MICHAEL J. PRATT, an individual; ANDRE GARCIA, an individual; MATTHEW WOLFE, an individual; BLL MEDIA, INC., a California corporation; BLL MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; EG PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California corporation; M1M MEDIA, LLC, a California limited liability company; BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC., a business organization, form unknown; OH WELL MEDIA LIMITED, a business organization, form unknown; MERRO MEDIA, INC., a California corporation; MERRO MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and ROES 1 - 500, inclusive, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Intentional Misrepresentation Fraudulent Concealment False Promise Negligent Misrepresentation False Imprisonment Sexual Battery Gender Violence [Civ. C. § 52.4] Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Misappropriation of Name & Likeness [Common Law] 10. Misappropriation of Name 8c Likeness [Civ. C. § 3344] 11. Negligence 12. Breach of Contract 13. Promissory Estoppel 14. Unlawful & Fraudulent Business Practices [Bus. & Prof. Code §17200] Defendants. 1 COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiffs JANE DOES NOS. 1 - 4, inclusive, individuals, (all plaintiffs collectively, "The 2 Plaintiffs") bring this action against defendants GIRLSDOPORN.COM , a business organization, form 3 unknown; MICHAEL J. PRATT, an individual; ANDRE GARCIA, an individual; MATTHEW 4 WOLFE, an individual; BLL MEDIA, INC., a California corporation; BLL MEDIA HOLDINGS, 5 LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability 6 company; EG PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California corporation; M1M MEDIA, LLC, a California 7 limited liability company; BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC., a business organization, form unknown; OH 8 WELL MEDIA LIMITED, a business organization, form unknown; MERRO MEDIA, INC., a 9 California corporation; MERRO MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and 10 ROES 1 500, inclusive (all defendants collectively, "The Defendants"). - 11 THE PARTIES 12 1. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 1 is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. 13 2. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 2 is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. 14 3. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 3 is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. 15 4. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 4 is an individual residing in Manmouth County, New Jersey. 16 5. GIRLSDOPORN.COM is a business organintion, form unknown, with its principal place of 17 business in San Diego County, California. 18 6. 19 County, California. 20 7. 21 of business in Clark County, Nevada. 22 8. 23 business in Clark County, Nevada. 24 9. 25 San Diego County, California. 26 10. 27 in San Diego County, California. 28 11. BLL MEDIA, INC. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego BLL MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of EG PUBLICATIONS, INC. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in MIM MEDIA, LLC is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC. is a business organization, form unknown, with, on information 2 COMPLAINT 1 and belief; its "principal place of business" in Port Vila, Vanuatu. 2 12. 3 and belief; its "principal place of business" in Port Vila, Vanuatu. 4 13. 5 Diego County, California. 6 14. 7 place of business in Clark County, Nevada. 8 15. 9 HOLDINGS, LLC, DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC, EG PUBLICATIONS, INC., MIM MEDIA, LLC, OH WELL MEDIA LIMITED is a business organization, form unknown, with, on information MERRO MEDIA, INC. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San MERRO MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal On information and belief, GIRLSDOPORN.COM , BLL MEDIA, INC., BLL MEDIA 10 BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC., OH WELL MEDIA LIMITED, MERRO MEDIA, INC., MERRO 11 MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC; and ROES 1 - 250 ("THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS") are entities in the 12 business of online pornography production, distribution, and sales. On information and belief; THE 13 ENTITY DEFENDANTS own and/or operate numerous online pornography websites, including, 14 without limitation, www.girlsdoporn.com . 15 16. 16 On information and belief, he is a sales agent and representative, and the majority or sole shareholder, 17 managing member, and/or chief executive officer of each of THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS. 18 17. 19 information and belief; he is a sales agent and representative for each of THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS 20 — as well as a participant and "actor" in their pornography. 21 18. 22 On information and belief, he is a sales agent and representative for each of THE ENTITY 23 DEFENDANTS — as well as a videographer of their pornography. 24 19. 25 agents, representatives, videographers, and/or "actors" of THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS. 26 20. 27 herein as ROES 1 - 500, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names and 28 allege that ROES 1 - 500 are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged. The 3 MICHAEL J. PRATT ("PRATT") is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. ANDRE GARCIA ("GARCIA") is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. On MATTHEW WOLFE ("WOLFE") is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. On information and belief, ROES 251 —500 are other shareholders, members, officers, sales The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names, capacities, and/or liabilities of defendants sued COMPLAINT I Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names, capacities, and/or liabilities when 2 ascertained. 3 21. 4 contracting with The Plaintiffs, The Defendants were agents, servants, representatives, partners, joint 5 venturers, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and/or employees of each other in the acts and/or omissions 6 herein alleged. The Defendants were and are acting within the course and scope of their authority as 7 such agents, servants, representatives, partners, joint venturers, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and/or 8 employees and with the permission, authorization, consent, and ratification of each other. 9 22. In doing all things alleged herein, including, without limitation, corresponding, negotiating, and In doing all things alleged herein, including, without limitation, corresponding, negotiating, and 10 contracting with The Plaintiffs, THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS, PRATT, GARCIA, WOLFE, and 11 ROES 251 — 500 acted as alter egos of each other. In particular, they: (a) commingled their funds and 12 other assets, failed to segregate funds between them, and have without authorization diverted corporate 13 funds and assets for noncorporate uses; (b) treated each other's assets as their own; (c) issued shares of 14 one other to themselves and third parties haphazardly and without authority; (d) held themselves out as 15 being personally liable for the debts of each other; (e) failed to maintain minutes and corporate records, 16 and confused of the records of the separate entities; (f) used the same business locations and employed 17 the same employees; (g) failed to adequately capitalize the entities; (h) used each other as a conduit for 18 a single venture of themselves; (i) failed to maintain arm's length relationships among themselves; and 19 (j) diverted assets without consideration from/to one another to the detriment of creditors, including 20 The Plaintiffs. Recognition of the privilege of separate existences between these defendants would 21 promote injustice, unfairness, and fraud. Any separateness is to be disregarded. As such, The 22 Defendants are jointly and severally liable in this action as alter egos. 23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over The Defendants as they are physically present in San Diego 24 23. 25 County, California and/or because The Defendants committed the subject acts and omissions in San 26 Diego County, California. 27 24. 28 place of business, the subject contracts were entered into, and/or the obligations and liability arose. 4 Venue is proper as San Diego County is where The Defendants reside and have their principal COMPLAINT 1 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 2 The Defendants' Business Scam: Lie to Young Women and Con them into Online Pornography 3 25. 4 pornography business, which irreparably damages the lives of young women from San Diego and 5 across the country. 6 26. 7 www.girlsdoporn.com, a subscription-based amateur pornography website, which gets more traffic than 8 the San Diego Padres website. 9 27. PRATT, GARCIA, WOLFE and the rest of The Defendants operate a San Diego-based The Defendants collectively run pornography websites, the main website being The young women appearing in The Defendants' amateur pornography come from good 10 families, have never appeared in pornography before, are often paying their way through school, and 11 are just beginning their careers and adulthood. So, there is only way The Defendants can convince 12 these women to have sex on filin . The Defendants lie to them. 13 28. 14 modeling agency, directing applicants to a sham website, e.g., www.beginemodelling.com . The 15 website contains an "Apply Now" form on every page that asks for the name, age, height, weight, state, 16 city, email, and phone number of each applicant. It also contains an attachment where prospective 17 models can upload photos. Once obtaining the information, The Defendants reach out to the women by 18 phone or email in order to feel the women out. Eventually, The Defendants offer the young women 19 thousands of dollars for adult film work. 20 29. 21 Defendants assure them that they will not post the video online, they will not distribute the video in the 22 United States, and they will keep each woman anonymous. The Defendants represent the videos will 23 be on DVDs overseas and for private use. If needed for convincing, The Defendants provide a 24 reference woman, who previously shot a video (but, whose video is not yet released), to vouch for The 25 Defendants and promise the same security, limited distribution, and anonymity. 26 30. 27 name) at upscale San Diego County hotels, most often at major high-end chains in downtown San 28 Diego (e.g., Hilton, Hyatt, Marriot). If the young women are not in Southern California, The 5 The Defendants advertise themselves across the country as a legitimate Southern California When the young women ask The Defendants where they will distribute the video, The After The Defendants lie to the young women, they book rooms (usually under PRATT'S COMPLAINT Defendants pay for their airfare to San Diego (again, usually using PRATT'S name / credit card). 31. Then, without hotel knowledge and consent, and, on information and belief, without any license or permit, The Defendants sneak videography equipment into the hotel — hiding the equipment in large suitcases — in order to produce the amateur pornography. 32. Once the young women are confined to the hotel room, The Defendants present them with documents to sign: (a) under duress and coercion (often yelling at them and saying there is no time to read); and (b) while continuing to orally misrepresent their intent for the video's eventual distribution. 33. After the filming begins, and/or when the young women are told what to do, if they refuse or say they are uncomfortable or in pain, The Defendants often yell at them, saying it is too late to change their minds and they cannot leave the hotel room. Further, the filming often takes much longer than the promised — often, the young women are confined in the hotel room and forced to film and have sex for many hours. Even worse, the young women are sometimes forced to have sex when not filming — to appease the "actor," most often GARCIA. 34. Around one month after filming, things get unimaginably worse for the young women. Despite their earlier representations, The Defendants release the videos on, at least, www.girlsdoporn.com (their monthly subscription website) and www.girls-do-pom.com (a free website with clips of the videos that then directs the user to www.girlsdoporn.com ). The Defendants also release/license all or part of the videos all over the intemet on a multiple of free pornography websites — in part, to advertise www.girlsdopom.com with the images and likenesses of the young women. (Interestingly, and by no accident, GARCIA'S (and any other male participant's) face is never shown in any video.) Soon thereafter, someone who knows one of the young women will notify them the video is online. This becomes the first time the young women have ever heard of The Defendants' website: www.girlsdopom.com. 35. When the young women reach out to The Defendants, they discover The Defendants have changed theft phone numbers (they use disposable phones and/or changeable Internet phone numbers). Later, the young women discover The Defendants have also used fake names (e.g., PRATT often uses "Mark," GARCIA often uses "Jonathan," and WOLFE often uses "Ben" or "Isaac"). 6 COMPLAINT 1 36. 2 usually on blogs followed by "fans" of www.girlsdoporn.com, who then stalk, harass, bully, and 3 blackmail the young women and their families — online, by telephone, and in-person. 4 37. 5 Some lose or change jobs, and some are forced to leave their school. Months to years after the videos, 6 many young women are still harassed by strangers on the Internet. And, many have suffered severe 7 psychological damage, necessitating medical, and professional treatment. Some have consulted rape 8 counselors. Some have attempted suicide. 9 38. Finally, to further injure the young women, The Defendants release their real names online, As a result, these young women lose relationships with friends, significant others, and family. Below, are specific facts and claims of four (4) plaintiff young women. 10 JANE DOE NO.! 11 39. 12 section for the Las Vegas area, seeking young women for adult modeling. 13 40. 14 GARCIA (going by his alias "Jonathan") by email, text message, and telephone. GARCIA eventually 15 offered her $9,200.00 for 3 videos. 16 41. 17 not post the videos online, they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and they would not 18 release her name. GARCIA told her the video would go to one "private buyer" overseas in Australia - 19 and would only be in DVD format. 20 42. 21 adult videos for The Defendants at The Palomar in downtown San Diego, 707 10 th Avenue in 22 downtown San Diego, and at the Coronado Island Marriott, respectively. Before each shoot, GARCIA 23 and WOLFE (going by his alias "Ben"), again, assured JANE DOE NO. 1 they would not post the 24 videos online, they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and they would not release her 25 name. 26 43. 27 expressed physical and mental discomfort. GARCIA and WOLFE would not allow her to leave. In July 2015, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com in the gigs/modeling That same month, JANE DOE NO. 1 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with That same month, in July 2015, GARCIA told JANE DOE NO. 1 on the phone that they would On August 3, 2015, September 14, 2015, and September 22, 2015, JANE DOE NO. 1 made During the filming on September 22, 2015 at the Coronado Island Marriott, JANE DOE NO. 1 28 7 COMPLAINT 1 44. In October 2015, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. l's videos on their website, 2 www.girlsdoporn.com , and other websites, which were then discovered by her high school, college, and 3 graduate school friends and acquaintances — as well her family. Also around October 2015, The 4 Defendants leaked JANE NO. DOE l's real name and her contact information (social media, phone, 5 email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog www.pomwikileaks.com . Internet strangers 6 then harassed JANE DOE NO. 1 through social media, text message, and phone. They also emailed 7 and called JANE DOE NO. l's college and graduate school students, faculty, and deans, calling her a 8 "whore, slut, disgrace, etc.," sent links to or screenshots of her videos, and later tagged her new 9 boyfriend on social media with the video. She considered dropping out of school. When JANE DOE 10 NO. 1 goes to her hometown, she often cannot leave the house due to the humiliation and 11 embarrassment. 12 JANE DOE NO. 2 13 45. In April 2015, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com in the gigs/modeling 14 section for San Diego, CA, seeking young women for fashion modeling. 15 46. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 2 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with 16 GARCIA (going by his alias "Jonathan") by email, text message, and telephone. GARCIA asked her to 17 come his condo in downtown San Diego to discuss the modeling shoot. At the condo, JANE DOE NO. 18 2 met GARCIA and WOLFE (going by his alias "Isaac"). 19 47. At GARCIA's condo in April 2015, GARCIA and WOLFE surprised JANE DOE NO. 2 with 20 the news that the modeling shoot was actually an adult film, and offered her $5,000 cash. They told 21 JANE DOE NO. 2 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the 22 United States, and they would not release her name. They told her the video would go to "private 23 buyers" overseas and would only be in DVD format. They further told her the "private buyers" had 24 contracts, which prevented them from sharing or distributing the videos. GARCIA and WOLFE had 25 JANE DOE NO. 2 call another young woman named "Taylor," who assured JANE DOE NO. 2 the 26 video would remain private. 27 48. In April 2015, JANE DOE NO. 2 made an adult video for The Defendants at the Hard Rock 28 Hotel in downtown San Diego. There, GARCIA and WOLFE, again, assured JANE DOE NO. 2 they 8 COMPLAINT I would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and they 2 would not release her name. When providing her with a written agreement, GARCIA and WOLFE 3 would not allow JANE DOE NO. 2 to read it, and told her it was merely a "tax form" and "privacy 4 agreement." 5 49. 6 WOLFE told her she could not leave. She was afraid to leave. 7 50. 8 www.girlsdopom.com and other websites, which was discovered by her friends and acquaintances — as 9 well her family. Also around April 10, 2015, The Defendants leaked JANE DOE NO. 2's real name During the shoot, JANE DOE NO. 2 expressed physical and mental discomfort. GARCIA and On or about April 10, 2015, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 2's video on 10 and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the 11 blog www.pornwikileaks.com . The users of that blog then harassed JANE DOE NO. 2 through social 12 media, text message, and phone, calling her a "whore, slut, disgrace, etc.," sent her friends and 13 acquaintances links to or screenshots of her video, and later tagged her new boyfriend on social media 14 with the video. 15 JANE DOE NO. 3 16 51. 17 women for adult modeling in San Diego, CA. 18 52. 19 GARCIA (going by his alias "Jonathan") by email and text message. GARCIA offered her $3,000.00 20 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 3 asked GARCIA where the video would be distributed. 21 GARCIA told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the 22 United States, and they would not release her name. GARCIA told her the video would be on DVD 23 and only distributed overseas in South America. 24 53. 25 San Diego Bayfront. Before the shoot, GARCIA and WOLFE (going by his alias "Ben"), again, 26 assured JANE DOE NO. 3 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in 27 the United States, and they would not release her name. 28 /// In March 2014, The Defendants posted an advertisement on exploretalent.com , seeking young That same month, JANE DOE NO. 3 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with On March 23, 2014, JANE DOE NO. 3 made an adult video for The Defendants at the Hilton 9 COMPLAINT 1 54. 2 www.girlsdopom.com and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, co- 3 workers, and employer. Also around July 4, 2014, The Defendants leaked JANE DOE NO. 3's real 4 name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at 5 least, the blog www.pomwilcilealcs.com . The users of that blog then harassed JANE DOE NO. 3 6 through social media, text message, and phone. She has been shunned and blackmailed by friends and 7 coworkers. 8 JANE DOE NO. 4 9 55. Around July 4, 2014, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 3's video on In April 2013, The Defendants, going by their alias "Bubblegum Casting," posted an 10 advertisement on Craigslist.com in the gigs/modeling section for Eastern, North Carolina, seeking 11 young women for modeling. 12 56. 13 WOLFE by email and text message. JANE DOE NO. 4 also FaceTimed with WOLFE and GARCIA. 14 WOLFE and GARCIA offered her $2,000.00 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 4 asked WOLFE 15 and GARCIA where the video would be distributed. WOLFE and GARCIA told her they would not 16 post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and they would not 17 release her name. WOLFE and GARCIA told her the video would be on DVD and would go only to a 18 video store in Australia. 19 57. 20 San Diego Marriott. The Defendants booked the room under WOLFE'S name. Before the shoot, 21 GARCIA and WOLFE, again, assured JANE DOE NO. 4 they would not post the video online, they 22 would not distribute the video in the United States, and they would not release her name. 23 58. 24 and WOLFE to leave. They told her she could not leave until they were finished. 25 59. 26 only paid her $400 (they gave her stack of cash with twenty dollar bills on top, but clandestinely filled 27 the middle with one dollar bills). They also locked JANE DOE NO. 4 out of the hotel room, forcing 28 her to find other hotel accommodations alone. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 4 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with On April 9, 2013, JANE DOE NO. 4 made an adult video for The Defendants at the downtown During the shoot, JANE DOE NO. 4 became scared and in extreme pain, so she asked GARCIA GARCIA and WOLFE then reneged on their promise to pay JANE DOE NO. 4 the $2,000 and 10 COMPLAINT 1 60. 2 www.girlsdopom.com and other websites, including www.pomhub.com , which were then discovered 3 by her family and friends. Also around June 2013, The Defendants leaked JANE DOE NO. 4's real 4 name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at 5 least, the blog vvww.pomwikileaks.com . Later, the users of that blog then harassed JANE DOE NO. 4 6 through social media, text message, and phone. JANE DOE NO. 4 became depressed, could not leave 7 the house, was bullied, was blackmailed, and her car was vandalized. Around June 2013, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 4's videos on 8 CAUSES OF ACTION 9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION 11 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 12 61. 13 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 14 62. 15 adult video for The Defendants, The Defendants represented: they would not post the videos online, 16 they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and they would not release The Plaintiffs' 17 names. 18 63. Those representations were false. 19 64. The Defendants intended that The Plaintiffs rely on the above representations when each young 20 woman decided to make an adult video. 21 65. The Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the representations. 22 66. The Plaintiffs have been harmed by their reasonable reliance in that The Defendants published 23 their videos online, published their videos in the United States, and released The Plaintiffs' real names. 24 67. 25 harm. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 26 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of income, and serious emotional distress, 27 including, but not limited to, bullying, blackmail, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, 28 nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. 11 The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this During The Plaintiffs' discussions and negotiations with The Defendants before each made an The Plaintiffs' reliance on these false representations was a substantial factor in causing their COMPLAINT 1 68. 2 these representations and, when one of them made a representation, the others ratified the 3 representation and/or knew of the misrepresentation and failed to correct it. 4 69. 5 Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 6 Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally mislead The Plaintiffs at the 7 time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants 8 injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 9 70. 10 The Defendants were acting individually and on behalf of each other when they made each of The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this fraud as: (1) each of The The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore warrant an award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. 11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 12 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 13 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 14 71. 15 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 16 72. 17 adult video for The Defendants, The Defendants actively concealed their true identities (their individual 18 names and, more importantly, the identity of www.girlsdoporn.com , on which they intended to publish 19 The Plaintiffs nude photos and sex acts). They actively concealed the fact their true intention was to 20 post the videos online, distribute them in the United States, and release The Plaintiffs' names. 21 73. 22 they provided some information to The Plaintiffs during correspondence, and during contract and 23 business negotiations. 24 74. 25 website, their business, their video distribution, and their release of The Plaintiff's names. 26 75. 27 videos. 28 II/ The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this During The Plaintiffs' discussions and negotiations with The Defendants before each made an The Defendants owed The Plaintiffs duties to disclose this information as, among other reasons, The Defendants knew of, but knowingly concealed, the true facts regarding their identifies, their The Defendants concealed these facts with the intent to induce The Plaintiffs to make the adult 12 COMPLAINT 1 76. 2 Plaintiffs to make the adult videos. 3 77. The Plaintiffs justifiably relied on The Defendants' false representations. 4 78. The Defendants' failure to disclose these material facts to The Plaintiffs was substantial factor 5 in causing their harm. Had The Plaintiffs known of the undisclosed facts, they would not have made 6 the adult videos. 7 79. 8 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of income, and serious emotional distress, 9 including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, The concealed information was objectively material to any reasonable person and caused The The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 10 depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. 11 80. 12 these omissions and, when one of them made an omission, the others ratified the omission and/or knew 13 of the omission and failed to correct it. 14 81. 15 Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 16 Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally mislead The Plaintiffs at the 17 time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants 18 injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 19 82. 20 award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. The Defendants were acting individually and on behalf of each other when they made each of The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this fraud as: (1) each of The The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore warrant an 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22 FALSE PROMISE 23 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 24 83. 25 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 26 84. 27 they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and they would not release The Plaintiffs' 28 names. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this The Defendants made promises to The Plaintiffs that: they would not post the videos online, 13 COMPLAINT 1 85. 2 would not have otherwise made the adult videos. 3 86. 4 not performed as promised. The Defendants knew their promises were false and merely wanted The 5 Plaintiffs to make the videos for The Defendants' benefit. 6 87. 7 promises by making the adult videos. 8 88. 9 Defendants' affirmative promises were an immediate cause of The Plaintiffs' conduct. The Defendants' affirmative promises were of material fact and important as The Plaintiffs The Defendants did not intend to perform these promises at the times they made them, and have The Defendants intended to induce The Plaintiffs to alter their positions in reliance on the The Plaintiffs justifiably and reasonably relied on The Defendants' promises and The 10 89. The Defendants did not perform the promises. 11 90. As an actual and proximate cause of The Defendants' false promises and The Plaintiffs' 12 justifiable reliance, The Plaintiffs were damaged in that The Defendants posted the videos online, 13 distributed the videos in the United States, and released The Plaintiffs' names. 14 91. 15 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of income, and serious emotional distress, 16 including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, 17 depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. 18 92. 19 these omissions and, when one of them made a false promise, the others ratified it, and/or knew of the 20 false promise and failed to correct it. 21 93. 22 Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 23 Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally mislead The Plaintiffs at the 24 time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants 25 injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 26 94. 27 award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. 28 /// The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 The Defendants were acting individually and on behalf of each other when they made each of The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this fraud as: (1) each of The The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore warrant an 14 COMPLAINT 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 3 (All The Plaintiffs against MI The Defendants) 4 95. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this 5 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 6 96. During their negotiations, contracting, and dealings with The Plaintiffs, The Defendants made 7 the above representations: they would not post the videos online, they would not distribute the videos in 8 the United States, and they would not release The Plaintiffs' names. 9 97. The representations were false and although The Defendants may have honestly believed that 10 the representations were true, they had no reasonable grounds for believing the representations were 11 true when they made them. 12 98. The Defendants intended that The Plaintiffs would rely on the above representations in their 13 decisions to make the adult videos. 14 99. The Plaintiffs reasonably relied on The Defendants' misrepresentations in their decisions to 15 make the adult videos. 16 100. The Plaintiffs' reliance on The Defendants' false representations was a substantial factor in 17 causing their harm in that The Defendants posted their videos online, published their videos in the 18 United States, and released The Plaintiffs' names. 19 101. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 20 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of income, and serious emotional distress, 21 including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, 22 depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. 23 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 24 FALSE IMPRISONMENT 25 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 26 102. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this 27 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 28 103. The Defendants intentionally deprived The Plaintiffs of their freedom of movement by use of 15 COMPLAINT 1 fraud, deceit, and/or unreasonable duress. 2 104. The Defendants' conduct compelled The Plaintiffs to stay in their respective hotel rooms during 3 the video shoots for an appreciable period of time. 4 105. The Plaintiffs did not voluntarily consent. 5 106. The Plaintiffs were harmed by The Defendants' conduct in an amount to be proven at trial, but 6 is believed to be, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of 7 income, and serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, 8 enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and 9 fear. 10 107. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this tort as: (1) each of The 11 Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 12 Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally held The Plaintiffs at the time 13 and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants 14 injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 15 108. The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore warrant an 16 award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. 17 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 SEXUAL BATTERY 19 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 20 109. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this 21 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 22 110. The Defendants intended to cause a harmful and/or offensive contact with The Plaintiffs' sexual 23 organs, groin, buttocks, and breasts, and a sexually harmful and/or offensive contact with the same 24 resulted directly. 25 111. The Plaintiffs' consent was obtained by fraud (i.e., they would not have consented to the sexual 26 contact but for The Defendants' above-referenced deceit). 27 112. The Defendants' conduct harmed The Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial, but is 28 believed to be, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of income, 16 COMPLAINT 1 and serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring 2 fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. 3 113. 4 Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 5 Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally battered The Plaintiffs at the 6 time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants 7 injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 8 114. 9 award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this tort as: (1) each of The The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore warrant an 10 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 GENDER VIOLENCE [Civil Code § 52.41 12 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 13 115. 14 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 15 116. 16 sexual nature under coercive and fraudulent conditions. 17 117. 18 believed to be, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of income, 19 and serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring 20 fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. 21 118. 22 injunctive relief, attorney fees, and punitive damages. 23 119. 24 each of The Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to 25 injure The Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally harmed The 26 Plaintiffs at the time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, 27 The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 28 /// The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this The Defendants subjected The Plaintiffs to physical intrusions and physical invasions of a The Defendants conduct caused The Plaintiffs harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but is Pursuant to Civil Code § 52.4, The Plaintiffs are entitled to actual and compensatory damages, The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this wrongful conduct as: (1) 17 COMPLAINT 1 120. 2 an award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore also warrant 3 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 MISAPPROPRIATION OF NAME AND LIKENESS [COMMON LAW' 5 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 6 121. 7 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 8 122. 9 permission, including, without limitation, on The Defendants' websites (e.g., www.girlsdoporn.com ), The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this The Defendants used The Plaintiffs' names, likenesses, and/or identities without The Plaintiffs' 10 social media, and advertising. 11 123. 12 identities. 13 124. 14 believed to be, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of income, 15 and serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring 16 fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. 17 125. 18 Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 19 Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally misappropriated The Plaintiffs' 20 names, likenesses, and/or identities at the time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) 21 pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 22 126. 23 an award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. The Defendants' gained a commercial benefit by using The Plaintiffs' names, likenesses, and/or The Defendants conduct caused The Plaintiffs harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but is The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this tort as: (I) each of The The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore also warrant 24 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 MISAPPROPRIATION OF LIKENESS ICIVIL CODE § 3344] 26 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 27 127. 28 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 18 The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this COMPLAINT 1 128. On their websites (e.g., www.girlsdoporn.com ), social media, and other advertising, The 2 Defendants knowingly used The Plaintiffs' names, voices, photographs, video, and likenesses to 3 advertise or sell subscriptions to The Defendants' businesses. 4 129. The Defendants' use did not occur in connection with a news, public affairs, or sports broadcast 5 or account, or with a political campaign. 6 130. The Defendants did not have The Plaintiffs' consent. 7 131. The Defendants use of The Plaintiffs' names, voices, photographs, video, and likenesses was 8 directly connected to The Defendants' commercial purpose. 9 132. The Defendants conduct caused The Plaintiffs harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but is 10 believed to be, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, financial injury, loss of income, 11 and serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring 12 fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. 13 133. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this tort as: (1) each of The 14 Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 15 Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally misappropriated The Plaintiffs' 16 names, voices, photographs, video, and likenesses at the time and place and via the manner set forth 17 above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 18 134. The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore also warrant 19 an award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. 20 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 22 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 23 135. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this 24 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 25 136. The Defendants concealed the fact they run an online pornography website. In order to get The 26 Plaintiffs to make adult videos, The Defendants lied to The Plaintiffs about the distribution. Then, after 27 publishing the videos online, to further and permanently injure The Plaintiffs, The Defendants released 28 The Plaintiffs' names, all contrary to their representations and promises. The Defendants then used the 19 COMPLAINT 1 videos and names to commercially promote their websites. This conduct was outrageous as it exceeded 2 all bounds of common decency usually tolerated by a civilized society. 3 137. 4 were substantially certain to result from The Defendants' conduct. 5 138. 6 serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, 7 shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear. The Plaintiffs 8 have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff. 9 139. The Defendants intended to inflict the injuries stated herein upon The Plaintiffs, or the injuries The Defendants' outrageous conduct actually and proximately caused The Plaintiffs to suffer The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this tort as: (1) each of The 10 Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 11 Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, with their outrageous conduct, The Defendants intentionally 12 infficted severe emotional distress upon The Plaintiffs at the time and place and via the manner set forth 13 above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 14 140. 15 award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. The Defendants' actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore warrant an 16 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 17 NEGLIGENCE 18 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 19 141. 20 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 21 142. 22 care and to prevent injury to The Plaintiffs based on the foreseeability of harm to The Plaintiffs, the 23 degree of certainty The Plaintiff would suffer injuries, the closeness of connection between The 24 Defendants' actions and The Plaintiffs' injuries, the moral blame attached to The Defendants' conduct, 25 the policy of preventing future harm, and the extent of The Defendants' burden and the consequences to 26 the community of imposing duty and liability. 27 143. 28 fact they run an online pornography website, publishing the videos online, releasing The Plaintiffs' real 20 The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this In their transactions and dealings with The Plaintiff, The Defendants had a duty to use ordinary The Defendants' above-described actions and omissions (e.g., lying about and concealing the COMPLAINT 1 names, using the videos and names to commercially promote their websites, falsely imprisoning The 2 Plaintiffs, and sexually battering The Plaintiffs) breached the duty of care. 3 144. 4 hann in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at 5 least, financial injury, loss of income, and serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss 6 of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, 7 mortification, shame, and fear. The Defendants' breach of the duty of care actually and proximately caused The Plaintiffs' 8 TWELTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 BREACH OF CONTRACT 10 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 11 145. 12 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 13 146. 14 to make their respective videos with the conditions: they would not post the videos online, they would 15 not distribute the videos in the United States, and they would not release The Plaintiffs' names. 16 147. 17 participated in the video shoots. 18 148. 19 contract by distributing the videos online and in the United States, and by releasing The Plaintiffs' 20 names. 21 149. 22 amount to be proven at trial, but believed to be, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this The Plaintiffs entered into oral agreements with The Defendants whereby The Plaintiffs agreed The Plaintiffs performed all of their obligations under the agreements; in particular, they All conditions required for The Defendants' performances occurred, but they breached the As an actual and proximate cause of The Defendants' breach, The Plaintiffs were damaged in an 23 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 24 PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 25 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 26 150. 27 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 28 /// The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this 21 COMPLAINT I 151. 2 post the videos online, they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and they would not 3 release The Plaintiffs' names. 4 152. The Plaintiffs relied on these promises in that they made the videos. 5 153. The Plaintiffs' reliance was both reasonable and foreseeable. 6 154. The Plaintiffs were injured as a result in that The Defendants distributed the videos online and 7 in the United States, and released The Plaintiffs' names. 8 155. 9 amount of, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff. The Defendants made clear and unambiguous promises to The Plaintiffs that: they would not Injustice can be avoided only by an award of compensatory and consequential damages in the 10 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 0 17200, et seq. 12 (All The Plaintiffs against All The Defendants) 13 156. 14 complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 15 157. 16 Section 17200, et seq. ("Section 17200"). 17 158. 18 violates common and California statutory law. The Defendants' "business practice" constitutes 19 "fraudulent" conduct under Section 17200, as it deceives — and is likely to deceive — members of the 20 public. 21 159. 22 economic injury in fact and caused The Defendants to receive ill-gotten gains. The Plaintiffs were 23 damaged — and The Defendants unjustly enriched - in an amount to be proven at trial, but believed to 24 be, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff. As such, The Plaintiffs have individual standing under Section 25 17200. 26 160. 27 restitution of The Plaintiffs' property (e.g., videos and images); the Court should enjoin The 28 Defendants' violative conduct; and the Court should issue the maximum civil penalties permitted. 22 The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this The Defendants' conduct constitutes a "business practice" under Business & Professions Code, The Defendants' "business practice" constitutes "unlawful" conduct under Section 17200, as it The Defendants intended their conduct to cause — and it did so cause — The Plaintiffs to suffer Pursuant to the remedies provisions of Section 17200: The Defendants owe The Plaintiffs COMPLAINT 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, The Plaintiffs pray for judgment against The Defendants as follows: 4 A. For compensatory damages in an amount of, at least, $2,000,000; B. For restitution; For civil penalties; 5 6 D. For an injunction; 7 E. For punitive damages; 8 F. For attorney fees; 9 G. For prejudgment interest; 10 H. For costs of suit; and 11 1. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 12 4 13 Date: June 2, 2016 14 'Brien Brian M. Holm Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 23 COMPLAINT