#0319 Robert Hamparyan (State Bar No. 181934) ROBERT HAMPARYAN, APC 275 W. Market Street San Diego, CA 92101 t. 619.550.1355 6. robert@han1paryanlawfirm.com John I. O?Brien (State Bar No. 253392) THE LAW FIRM, APLC 750 Street, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 t. 619.535.5151. e. john@theobrienlawfirm.com 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 Attorneys for Plaintiffs FILED SAN SUPERIOR COURT an: 14.42015 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT BY: T. RAY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO JANE DOE NOS. 1 - 14, inclusive, individuals; Plaintiffs, v. GIRLSDOPORNCOM, 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; MEDIA, LLC, a California limited liability company; BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC., 21 business organization, forrn 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 1 550, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Intentional Misrepresentation Fraudulent Concealment False Promise Negligent Misrepresentation Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress Misappropriation of Name Likeness [Common Law] 7. Misappropriation of Name Likeness [Civ. C. 3344] 8. Negligence 9. Breach of Contract 10. Promissory Estoppel l. 1. Unlawful Fraudulent Business Practices [Bus Prof. Code ?17200] 12. Fraudulent Transfer 37?5"?pr FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs JANE DOES NOS. 1 - 14, inclusive, individuals, (all plaintiffs collectively, ?The Plaintiffs?) bring this ?rst amended complaint against defendants GIRLSDOPORNCOM, 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, aNevada limited liability company; DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; EG PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California corporation; 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 - 550, inclusive (all defendants collectively, ?The Defendants?). THE PARTIES -- Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. l'is an individual'residing'i'n San Diego County, California". 2. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 2 is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. 3. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 3 is an individual residing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 4.. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 4 is an individual residing in Monmouth County, New Jersey. 5. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 5 'is an individual residing in Alachua Cormty, Florida. 6. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 6 is an individual residing in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. 7. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 7 is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas. 8. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 8 is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. 9. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 9 is an individual residing in Bexar County, Texas. 10. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 10 is an individual residing in Los Angeles County, California. 11. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 11 is an individual residing in Knox County, Tennessee. 12. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 12 is an individual residing in Charlotte County, Florida. 13. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 13 is an individual residing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 14. Plaintiff JANE DOE NO. 14 is an individual residing in Alberta, Canada. 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT KDOOH-JON inSanDiego 15. GIRLSDOPORN.COM is a business organization, form unknown, with its principal place of business in San Diego County, California. 16. BLL MEDIA, INC. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego County, California. 17. BLL MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada. 18. DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada. 19. EG PUBLICATIONS, INC. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego County, California. 20. MIM MEDIA, LLC is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business 21. BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC. is a business organization, form unknown, with, on information and belief, its ?principal place of business? in Port Vila, Vanuatu. 22. OH WELL MEDIA LIMITED is a business organization, form unknown, with, on information and belief, its ?principal place of business? in Port Vila, Vanuatu. 23. MERRO MEDIA, INC. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego County, California. 24. MERRO MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada. 25. On information and belief, GIRLSDOPORN.COM, BLL MEDIA, INC., BLL MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, DOMI PUBLICATIONS, LLC, EG PUBLICATIONS, INC., MEDIA, LLC, BUBBLEGUM FILMS, INC., OH WELL MEDIA LIMITED, MERRO MEDIA, INC., MERRO MEDIA HOLDINGS, and ROES 1 - 250 ENTITY are entities in the business of online pornography production, distribution, and sales. On information and belief, THE ENTITY DEF ENDANTS own Hand/or operate numerous online pornography websites, including, Without limitation, I 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (.11me 26. MICHAEL J. PRATT is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. On information and belief, he is a sales agent and representative, and the majority or sole shareholder, managing member, andior chief executive officer of each of THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS. 27. ANDRE GARCIA is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. On information and belief, he is a sales agent and representative for each of THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS as well as a participant and ?actor? in their pornography. 28. MATTHEW WOLFE is an individual residing in San Diego County, California. On information and belief, he is a sales agent and representative for each of THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS as well as a video grapher of their pornography. 29. On information and belief, ROES 251 500 are other shareholders, members, officers, sales agents, representatives, videographers, and/or ?actors? of THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS. ?3 The ePla-inti-ffs-areh-i gn-oranto-fthe-true name'srcap'acitiesrand/or ?liab'i?li't'i'esof defendants sued herein as ROES - 550, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such ?ctitious names and allege that ROES - 550 are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged. The Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names, capacities, and/or liabilities when ascertained. 31. In doing all things alleged herein, including, without limitation, corresponding, negotiating, and contracting with The Plaintiffs, The Defendants were agents, servants, representatives, partners, joint venturers, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and/or employees of each other in the acts and/ or omissions herein alleged. The Defendants were and are acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, servants, representatives, partners, joint venturers, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and/or employees and with the permission, authorization, consent, and ratification of each other. 32. In doing all things alleged herein, including, without limitation, corresponding, negotiating, and contracting with The Plaintiffs, THE ENTITY DEFENDANTS, PRATT, GARCIA, WOLFE, and ROES 251 550 acted as alter egos of each other. In particular, they: commingled their funds and other assets, failed to segregate funds between them, and have without authorization diverted corporate funds and assets for noncorporate uses; treated each other?s assets as their own; issued shares of one other to themselves and third parties haphazardly and without authority; held themselves out as 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT KDOOKION being personally liable for the debts of each other; failed to maintain minutes and corporate records, and confused of the records of the separate entities; used the same business locations and employed the same employees; failed to adequately capitalize the entities; used each other as a conduit for a single venture of themselves; failed to maintain arm? length relationships among themselves; and diverted assets without consideration from/to one another to the detriment of creditors, including The Plaintiffs. Recognition of the privilege of separate existences between these defendants would promote injustice, unfairness, and fraud. Any separateness is to be disregarded. As such, The Defendants are jointly and severally liable in this action as alter egos. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 33. This Court has jurisdiction over The Defendants as they are physically present in San Diego County, California and/or because The Defendants committed the subject acts and omissions in San uDi-ege?Gountyg?Ga-l-ifornia. 34. Venue is proper as San Diego County is where The Defendants reside and have their principal place of business, the subject contracts were entered into, and/or the obligations and liability arose. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Defendants? Business Scam: Lie to Young Women and Con them into Online Pornography 35. PRATT, GARCIA, WOLFE and the rest of The Defendants operate a San Diego-based pornography business, which irreparably damages the lives of young women from San Diego and across the country. 36. The Defendants collectively run pornography websites, the main website being a subscription-based amateur pornography website, which gets more traf?c than the San Diego Padres website. 37. The young women appearing in The Defendants? amateur pornography come from good families, have never appeared in pornography before, are often paying their way through school, and are just beginning their careers and adulthood. So, there is only way The Defendants can convince these women to have sex on ?lm or produce other adult video material: The Defendants lie to them. 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I 1?4 I?l r?l i?t r?l i:?x 38. The Defendants advertise themselves across the country as a legitimate Southern California modeling agency - on Craigslist and other websites, or even on sham websites they created, e. The Defendants ask for the name, age, height, weight, state, city, email, and phone number of each applicant, ask for photos, and, if The Defendants feel they have attracted a prOper target, reach out to the women by phone and/or email in order to feel the women out more. Eventually, if a proper target, The Defendants offer the young women thousands of dollars for adult ?lm work. 39. When the young women ask The Defendants where they will distribute the video, The Defendants assure them that they will not post the video online (or cause it to be so posted), they will not distribute the video in the United States (or cause is to be so distributed), and they will keep each woman anonymous. The Defendants represent the videos will be on DVDs overseas and for private o?pre?viousiy shot a video (but, whose video is not yet released), to vouch for The Defendants and promise the same security, limited distribution, and anonymity. 40. In their discussions with these young woman, The Defendants use aliases and mention nothing about their website(s) where they plan to post the videos, or the websites on which they plan to publically promote and advertise the videos. The Defendants also mention nothing about: all of the other young women whose lives they have irreparably damaged earlier by The Defendants? video publication and promotion; all of the other young women imploring them to stop and to take down their videos; and all of the complaints that they (and their legal counsel) have received from other young women and their families. 41. After The Defendants lie to the young women, they book rooms (usually under name) at upscale San Diego County hotels, most often at major high-end chains in downtown San Diego Hilton, Hyatt, Marriot). If the young women are not in Southern California, The Defendants pay for their airfare to San Diego (again, usually using name credit card). 42. Then, without hotel knowledge and consent, and, on information and belief, without any license or permit whatsoever, The Defendants sneak videography equipment into the hotel hiding the equipment in large suitcases in order to produce the amateur pornography. 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 43. Once the young women are con?ned to the hotel room, The Defendants present them with documents to sign: often under duress, coercion, and/or while distracting or rushing them; while continuing to orally misrepresent their intent for the video?s eventual distribution; (0) while continuing to fraudulently omit the material facts referenced herein that they work for a San Diego-based pornography website that has damaged other young women?s lives); and often lying about the purported nature and effect of the documents. 44. Around one month after ?lming, despite their earlier representations, The Defendants release the videos on, at least, (their subscription-based website) and wwgirls-do-porncom (a free website with clips of the videos that then directs the user to The Defendants also release/license all or part of the videos all over the internet on a multiple of free pornography websites in part, to advertise with - (Interestingly; 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 ?rst time the young women have ever heard of The Defendants? main website: 45. When the young women reach out to The Defendants, they discover The Defendants have changed their phone numbers (they use disposable phones and/or changeable Internet phone numbers) and have also used fake names PRATT often uses ?Mark,? GARCIA often uses ?Jonathan,? and WOLFE often uses ?Ben? or ?Isaac?). The Defendants then refuse to talk to the women, hang up on them, and/or block their calls. If the women get in contact with The Defendants? counsel, they refuse to even give The Plaintiffs copies of any documents signed and threaten them with legal action. 46. After The Defendants cause the videos to be distributed online, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or Internet stalkers release The Plaintiffs? real names online, usually on blogs followed by ?fans? and subscribers of As a result (of which The Defendants are cognizant), third parties often then stalk, harass, bully, and blackmail the young women and their families online, by telephone, and in-person. 47. Because of The Defendants, some of these young women lose relationships with friends, signi?cant others, and family. Some lose or change jobs, and some are forced to leave their school. 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I I I. Months to years after the videos, many are still harassed by strangers on the Internet. And almost all have suffered severe and emotional damage -- some have even considered suicide. 48. Below, are more speci?c facts and claims of fourteen (14) plaintiff young women. JANE DOE NO. 1 49. In July 2015, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com in the gigs/modeling section for the Las Vegas area, seeking young women for adult modeling. 50. That same month, JANE DOE NO. I responded to the advertisement and corresponded with GARCIA (going by his alias ?Jonathan?) by email, text message, and telephone. GARCIA eventually offered her $9,200 for 3 videos. 51. That same month, in July 2015, GARCIA told JANE DOE NO. I on the phone that they would not post the videos online, they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and that she would - - and would only be in DVD format. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. . 52. On August 3, 2015, September 14, 2015, and September 22, 2015, JANE DOE NO. 1 made adult videos for The Defendants at The Palomar in downtown San Diego, 707 10th Avenue in downtown San Diego, and at the Coronado Island Marriott, respectively. Before each shoot, GARCIA and WOLFE (going by his alias again, assured JANE DOE NO. 1 they would not post the videos online, they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the Videos. 53. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and WOLFE did not let JANE DOE NO. I thoroughly read; they also distracted her and told her the documents merely said the ?lms would be for video format in Australia. 54. After the videos, The Defendants reneged on their promise to pay JANE DOE NO. 1 the $9,200 and only paid her $8,200. 55. In October 2015, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 1?s videos on their website, and other websites, which were then discovered by her high school, college, and 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UILUJN graduate school friends and acquaintances - as well her family. 56. Also around October 2015, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE NO. DOE 1?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog unvw.pornwikileaks.com. JANE DOE NO. 1 was harassed through social media, text message, and phone. People emailed and called JANE DOE NO. 1?s college and graduate school students, faculty, and cleans, calling her a ?whore, slut, disgrace, etc.,? sent links to or screenshots of her videos, and tagged her boyfriend on social media with the video. JANE DOE N0. 2 57. In Around February 2015, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com in the gigs/modeling section for San Diego, CA, seeking young women for adult modeling. 58. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 2 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with $6,000 for 2 videos. 59. That same month, GARCIA told JANE DOE NO. 2 on the phone that they would not post the videos online, they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the video would go to ?private buyers? overseas and would only be in DVD format. They further told her the ?private buyers? had contracts, which prevented them from sharing or distributing the videos. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. 60. On February 1, 2015 and February 19, 2015, JANE DOE NO. 2 made adult videos for The Defendants at the Hard Rock Hotel in downtown San Diego and a downtown condo, respectively. Before each shoot, GARCIA and WOLFE (going by his alias ?Isaac?) assured JANE DOE NO. 2 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. 61. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and WOLFE did not let JANE DOE NO. 2 thoroughly read; they also distracted her and told her they was merely a ?tax form? and ?privacy agreement.? 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 62. After the video, The Defendants reneged on their promise to pay JANE DOE NO. 2 the $6,000 and only paid her $5,000. 63. On or about April 10, 2015, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 2?s video on W.girlsdoporn.com and other websites, which was discovered by her friends and acquaintances as well her family. 64. Also around April 10, 2015, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 2?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog JANE DOE NO. 2 was harassed through social media, text message, and phone. She was called her a ?whore, slut, disgrace, etc.? and people sent her friends and acquaintances links to or screenshots of her video, and tagged her boyfriend on social media with the video. 3 65. In March 2014, The Defendants posted an advertisement on exploretalentcom, seeking young women for adult modeling in San Diego, CA. 66. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 3 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with GARCIA (going by his alias ?Jonathan?) by email and text message. GARCIA offered her $3,000 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 3 asked GARCIA where the video would be distributed. GARCIA told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. GARCIA told her the video would be on DVD and only distributed overseas in South America. 67. On March 23, 2014, JANE DOE NO. 3 made an adult video for The Defendants at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront. Before the shoot, GARCIA and WOLFE (going by his alias again, assured JANE DOE NO. 3 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. 68. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and WOLFE said were merely to ensure her privacy and that she would be compensated. 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT seconmmn69. Around July 4, 2014, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 3 ?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, co- workers, and employer. 70. Also around July 4, 2014, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 3 5 real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog People then harassed JANE DOE NO. 3 through social media, text message, and phone. She has been shunned and blackmailed by friends and coworkers. JANE DOE NO. 4 71. In April 2013, The Defendants, going by their alias ?Bubblegum Casting,? posted an advertisement on Craigslistcom in the gigs/modeling section for Eastern, North Carolina, seeking ?young?wome?n?for?medeling. 72. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 4 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with WOLFE by email and text message. JANE DOE NO. 4 also aceTimed with WOLFE and GARCIA. WOLFE and GARCIA offered her $2,000 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 4 asked WOLFE and GARCIA where the video would be distributed. WOLFE and GARCIA told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. WOLFE and GARCIA told her the video would be on DVD and would go only to a video store in Australia. 73. On April 9, 2013, JANE DOE NO. 4 made an adult video for The Defendants at the downtown San Diego Marriott. The Defendants booked the room under name. Before the shoot, GARCIA and WOLFE, again, assured JANE DOE NO. 4 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. 74. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and WOLFE did not let JANE DOE NO. 4 thoroughly read; they also gave JANE DOE NO. 4 alcohol and she was intoxicated when signing the documents. 1 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 75. GARCIA and WOLFE then reneged on their promise to pay JANE DOE NO. 4 the $2,000 and only paid her $400 (they gave her stack of cash with twenty dollar bills on top, but clandestinely filled the middle with one dollar bills). 76. Around June 2013, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 4?s videos on and other websites, including which were then discovered by her family and friends. 77. Also around June 2013, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 4?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog People then harassed JANE DOE NO. 4 through social media, text message, and phone. JANE DOE NO. 4 became depressed, could not leave the house, was bullied, was blackmailed, and her car was vandalized. 78. In August 2014, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com, seeking young women for adult modeling in Gainesville, Florida. 79. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 5 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with GARCIA (going by his alias ?Jonathan?) and PRATT or WOLFE (going by the alias ?Mike?) by email and text message. They offered her $3,000.00 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 5 asked them where the video would be distributed. They told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the video would only go to a private collector in Australia. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. 80. On August 29, 2014 and in early September 2014, JANE DOE NO. 5 made adult videos for The Defendants at the Hilton San-Diego Bayfront. Before the shoots, GARCIA and PRATT or WOLFE, again, assured JANE DOE NO. 5 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. 81. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which they did not let JANE DOE NO. 5 thoroughly read; they told her they were merely documents saying she 1 2 FIRST AMENDED -- was sober. 82. Around mid-December, 2014, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 5?s video on Wrwgirlsdoporneom and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and people in her hometown. 83. Also on information and belief, around mid-December, 2014, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 5?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog wwpornwikileakscom. People then harassed, threatened, and bullied JANE DOE NO. 5 through social media, text message, and phone. JANE DOE N0. 6 84. In May 2016, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com, seeking young 85. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 6 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with GARCIA (going by his alias ?Jonathan?) by email andltext message. GARCIA offered her $7,000 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 6 asked them where the video would be distributed. GARCIA told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the video would only go to DVDs in Australia. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. 86. On May 19, 2016, JANE DOE NO. 6 made an adult video for The Defendants at the Coronado Island Marriot. Before the shoot, GARCIA and ROE 251 (going by his alias ?Ted?) and The Defendants? makeup artist (?Riva?) assured JANE DOE NO. 6 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. In fact, GARCIA said The Defendants had never had an issue with the videos getting released, going viral, or anyone seeing the videos in the United States.1 I Notably, this is a month a?er Jane Doe Nos. 1 - 4 ?rst sued The Defendants (including GARCIA) in this action for, among other things, fraud and mass Internet distribution of their videos. . 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 87. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and ROE 251 did not let JANE DOE NO. 6 thoroughly read, and they told her the documents reiterated What they already discussed. 88. After the video, The Defendants reneged on their promise to pay JANE DOE NO. 6 the $7,000 and only paid her $4,500. 89. Around early August 2016, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 6?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and people in her hometown. 90. Also on information and belief, in early August 2016, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 6?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog JANE DOE N0. 6 - JANE DOE NO. 7 91. In October 2013, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com, seeking young women for adult modeling in Dallas, Texas. 92. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 7 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with GARCIA and WOLFE. They offered her $2,000 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 7 asked them where the video would be distributed. GARCIA told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the video would only go to DVDS in Australia. 93. In October 2013, JANE DOE NO. 7 made an adult video for The Defendants at the Rancho Bernardo Inn. Before the shoot, GARCIA and WOLFE assured JANE DOE NO. ?7 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. 94. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and WOLFE did not let JANE DOE NO. 6 thoroughly read, and they told her they were merely documents saying the video?s distribution was on DVD in Australia only. 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Hawk-WM 10 11 1?before July 2016, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 7?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and people in her hometown. 96. Also on information and belief, on or before July 2016, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 7?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog waywpornwikileakscom. JANE DOE NO. 7 became depressed, discriminated against, humiliated, and deeply traumatized. JANE DOE NO. 8 97. In July 2016, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com, seeking young women for adult modeling in San Diego, California. 98. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 8 responded to the advertisement and corresponded with video. JANE DOE NO. 8 asked them where the video would be distributed. They told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the video was for private use and would not be so used for many years. 99. On or about July 18, 2016 and August 5, 2016, JANE DOE NO. 8 made adult videos for The Defendants at L?Auberge Del Mar and a condo downtown, respectively. Before the shoots, GARCIA, PRATT or WOLFE, and The Defendants? makeup artist (?Riva?) assured JANE DOE NO. 8 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. In fact, GARCIA said The Defendants had never had an issue with the videos getting released, going viral, or anyone seeing the videos in the United States.2 100. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and PRATT or WOLFE did not let JANE DOE NO. 8 thoroughly read, and they told her they were merely ?protocol? and documents saying, ?it was okay to 2 This is almost 6 months a?er Jane Doe Nos. 1 - 4 ?rst sued The Defendants (including GARCIA) in this action for, among other things, fraud and mass Internet distribution of their videos. 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 101. In or around September 2016, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 8?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and people in her hometown. 102. Also on information and belief, in or around September 2016, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 8?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog JANE DOE NO. 8 became depressed, could not leave the house, and debated suicide several times. JANE DOE NO. 9 103. In April 2014, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com, seeking young women for adult modeling in San Antonio, Texas. I WOLFE and PRATT by email and text message. They offered her $3,500 to do adult videos. JANE DOE NO. 9 asked them where the videos would be distributed. GARCIA told her they would not post the videos online, they would not distribute the Videos in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. When JANE DOE NO. 9 said she did not want the videos online, they said, ?No, we wouldn?t do that, you?ll be fine and protected it? discreet and professional.? They told her the videos were for a DVD overseas. 105. In April 2014, JANE DOE NO. 9 made adult videos for The Defendants at La Valencia in La Jolla and at a condo downtown. Before the shoots, GARCIA and WOLFE assured JANE DOE NO. 9 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. 106. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and PRATT or WOLFE did not let JANE DOE NO. 9 thoroughly read, and they told her they were merely documents saying, ?it was okay to 107. In or around June 2014, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 9?s videos on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and 1 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT employer. 108. Also on information and belief, in or around June 2014, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 9?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog JANE DOE N0. 10 109. In March 2016, a prior woman who had just made a ?lm referred JANE DOE NO. 10 to The Defendants. 110. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 10 corresponded with GARCIA and WOLFE by email and text message. They offered her $5,000 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 10 asked them where the video would be distributed. They told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the Video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. 111. On July 12, 2015, JANE DOE NO. 10 made an adult video for The Defendants at The US Grant in San Diego. Before the shoot, GARCIA and WOLFE assured JANE DOE NO. 10 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. 112. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which GARCIA and WOLFE did not let JANE DOE NO. 10 thoroughly read. 113. GARCIA and WOLFE then reneged on their promise to pay JANE DOE NO. 10 the $7,000 and only paid her $2,000 (saying she looked old and deserved less). 114. In or around November 2015, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 10?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and employer. 115. Also on information and belief, in or around November 2015, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 10?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog People 1 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT h?L CD 11 then harassed JANE DOE NO. 10 and her family through social media. JANE DOE NO. 11 116. In March 2016, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com, seeking young women for adult modeling in Knoxville, Tennessee. 117. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 11 corresponded with WOLFE or PRATT by email and text message. They offered her $5,000.00 to do an adult Video. JANE DOE NO. 11 asked him where the video would be distributed. They told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the video was for DVD in Australia only. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. -- San Diego. Before the shoot, GARCIA and ROE 251 assured JANE DOE NO. 11 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. 119. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, did not allow her to thoroughly read, and GARCIA represented the documents were F?liability stuff and to protect their identities.? In fact, JANE DOE NO. 11 asked GARCIA if anyone had ever found the videos or had seen him in the videos. He said no. The Defendants? makeup artist (?Riva?) also assured her there was nothing to worry about. 120. Around May 1, 2016, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 11?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and employer. 121. Also on information and belief, around May 1, 2016, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 1 1?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog Wpornwikileakscom. People then harassed JANE DOE NO. 11 through social media, text message, and phone. JANE DOE NO. 11 became depressed and debated suicide several times. 1 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT NDOONION JANE DOE NO. 12 122. Around February 2015, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com, seeking young women for adult modeling in Knoxville, Tennessee. 123. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 12 corresponded with GARCIA and WOLFE by email and text message. They offered her $5,000.00 to do adult videos. JANE DOE NO. 12 asked them where the videos would be distributed. They told her they would not post the videos online, they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the videos would never go on the Internet and was for DVD in Australia only. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. 124. On February 2, 2015 and February 5, 2015, JANE DOE NO. 12 made an adult video for The WOLFE assured JANE DOE NO. 12 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. 125. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which they said were simply her agreeing to the amount she would be paid and to the video, and also distracted her while she was reading. 126. GARCIA and WOLFE then reneged on their promise to pay JANE DOE NO. 12 the $5,000 and only paid her $4,000.00 (saying she had cellulite on her legs). 127. Around April 2015, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 12?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and school. 128. Also on information and belief, around April 2015, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 12?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog JANE DOE NO. 12 became depressed, had nightmares, and lost/inj ured relationships with friends and family. 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JANE DOE NO. 13 129. Around November 2015, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslistcom, seeking young women for adult modeling in Knoxville, Tennessee. 130. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 13 corresponded with GARCIA (going by his alias ?Jonathan?) and ROE 251 (going by his alias ?Ted?) by email and text message. They offered her $5,000 to do an adult video. JANE DOE NO. 13 asked them where the video would be distributed. They told her they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the video would never go on the Internet and was for DVD in Australia only. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York, New York (where The Defendants were traveling at the time). Before the shoot, GARCIA and ROE 251 assured JANE DOE NO. 13 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. 132. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which they said were simply ?summing up all they had talked about,? and also distracted her and rushed her while she was reading. 133. GARCIA and ROE 251 then reneged on their promise to pay JANE DOE NO. 13 the $5,000 and only paid her $3 ,000.00 (saying she had fat and cellulite on her legs, and they did not like her breasts). 134. Around January 10, 2016, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 13?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and school. 135. Also on information and belief, around on January 10, 2016, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 12?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog mvaornwikileakscom. People then harassed JANE DOE NO. 13 through social media, text message, and phone. JANE DOE NO. 13 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - became depressed and debated suicide. JANE DOE NO. 14 136. Around July 2014, The Defendants posted an advertisement on Craigslist.com, seeking young women for adult modeling in New York, New York. 137. That same month, JANE DOE NO. 14 corresponded with GARCIA and WOLFE by email and text message. They offered her $5,000 to do adult videos. JANE DOE NO. 14 asked them where the videos would be distributed. They told her they would not post the videos online, they would not distribute the videos in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. They told her the videos would never go on the Internet and was for DVD in Australia only. They assured her there was nothing to worry about, promised her privacy, and said nobody she knew would see the videos. They had her speak with another women, who assured her the videos do not get leaked. 1 3 8. ?Around?-Ju-ly Diego. Before the shoot, GARCIA and WOLFE assured JANE DOE NO. 14 they would not post the video online, they would not distribute the video in the United States, and that she would remain anonymous. 139. They continued to make these representations when providing her with documents, which they said were simply ?standard documents stating her name and age,? and also distracted her and rushed her while she was reading. 140. Around June 2015, The Defendants released JANE DOE NO. 14?s video on and other websites, which were then discovered by her family, friends, and school. 141. Also on information and belief, around on January 10, 2016, The Defendants, their subscribers, and/or third parties leaked JANE DOE NO. 14?s real name and her contact information (social media, phone, email, etc.) on other websites, including, at least, the blog People then harassed JANE DOE NO. 14 and her family through social media, text message, and phone. JANE DOE NO. 14 became depressed, lives in fear, and moved out of the country to Canada. 21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 142. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 143. During The Plaintiffs? discussions and negotiations with The Defendants before each made an adult video for The Defendants (and simultaneous with The Plaintiffs? attempted review of any purported agreements), The Defendants represented: they would not post the videos online (or cause such publication), they would not distribute the videos in the United States (or cause such publication), and that The Plaintiffs would remain anonymous. The Defendants further represented at all times to ?ThePl?ai?r?1?t?iffs distributed ?in?the-?Uni?ted? States. -- - The Defendants at all times assured The Plaintiffs there was nothing to worry-about, promised privacy, and said nobody The Plaintiffs knew would see the videos. The Defendants caused other women to reiterate these representations to The Plaintiffs. Finally, The Defendants represented they would pay The Plaintiffs certain sums of money; as set forth above, some of The Plaintiffs did not receive the sums represented. 144. Those representations were false. 145. The Defendants intended that The Plaintiffs rely on the above representations when each young woman decided to make an adult Video. 146. The Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the representations. 147. The Plaintiffs have been banned by their reasonable reliance in that The Defendants published their videos online, published their videos in the United States, and released The Plaintiffs" real names. 148. The Plaintiffs? reliance on these false representations was a substantial factor in causing their harm. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least: serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, bullying, blackmail, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, morti?cation, shame, and fear; compensatory damages, including, but 22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 11 .12not limited to the difference in value in what the parties exchanged the money The Plaintiffs received for what they were told was Zimited distribution and what The Defendants pro?ted through gZObaZ distribution); and restitution unjust enrichment damages (same calculation as the compensatory damages). The Plaintiff also seek injunctive relief. 149. The Defendants were acting individually and on behalf of each other when they made each of these representations and, when one of them made a representation, the others rati?ed the representation and/or knew of the misrepresentation and failed to correct it. 150. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this fraud as: (1) each of The Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally mislead The Plaintiffs at the time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants -as--set--forth-above151. 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. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 152. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 153. During The Plaintiffs? discussions and negotiations with The Defendants before each made an adult video for The Defendants (and simultaneous with The Plaintiffs? attempted review of any purported agreements), The Defendants actively concealed their true identities (their individual names and, more importantly, the identity of on which they intended to publish The Plaintiffs nude photos and sex acts). At all these times, they actively concealed the fact their true intention was to post the videos online and distribute them in the United States or cause such publication and distribution. At all these times, The Defendants also concealed the facts regarding: all of the other young women whose lives they have irreparably damaged earlier by The Defendants? video publication and promotion; all of the other young women imploring them to stop and to take 23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT down their videos; and all of the complaints that they (and their legal counsel) have received from other young women and their families. 154. The Defendants owed The Plaintiffs duties to disclose this information as, among other reasons, they provided some information to The Plaintiffs during correspondence, and during contract and business negotiations. 155. The Defendants knew of, but knowingly concealed, the true facts regarding their identi?es, their website, their business, their Video distribution, and the likelihood of injury to and harassment of The Plaintiffs. 156. The Defendants concealed these facts with the intent to induce The Plaintiffs to make the adult videos. 157. The concealed information was objectively material to any reasonable person and caused The --Pl-ai?nti?ffs-?to make-the adult-videos.- -- - - - - 158. The Plaintiffs justifiably relied on The Defendants? false representations. 159. The Defendants? failure to disclose these material facts to The Plaintiffs was substantial factor in causing their harm. Had The Plaintiffs known of the undisclosed facts, they would not have made the adult videos. 160. The Plaintiffs? reliance on these false representations was a substantial factor in causing their harm. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least: serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, bullying, blackmail, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear; compensatory damages, including, but not limited to the difference in value in what the parties exchanged the money The Plaintiffs received for what they were told was limited distribution and what The Defendants profited through global distribution); and restitution unjust enrichment damages (same calculation as the compensatory damages). The Plaintiff also seek injunctive relief. 161. The Defendants were acting individually and on behalf of each other when they made each of these omissions and, when one of them made an omission, the others rati?ed the omission and/or knew of the omission and failed to correct it. 24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 162. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this fraud as: (1) each of The Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally mislead The Plaintiffs at the time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 163. 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. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE PROMISE (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 164. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this --co-mp-laint?as?-though set forth- herein3?i-nc-ludi-ng, without limitation,- the agency and alter" ego?"allegations; 165. During The P-laintiffs? discussions and negotiations with The Defendants before each made an adult video for The Defendants (and simultaneous with The Plaintiffs? attempted review of any purported agreements), The Defendants made promises to The Plaintiffs that: they would not post the videos online (or cause such publication), they would not distribute the videos in the United States (or cause such publication), and The Plaintiffs would remain anonymous. The Defendants promised The Plaintiffs that would not cause the videos to be posted online or distributed in the United States. The Defendants promised The Plaintiffs there was nothing to worry about, promised privacy, and promised nobody they knew would see the videos. Finally, The Defendants represented they would pay The Plaintiffs certain sums of money; as set forth above, some of The Plaintiffs did not receive the sums represented. 166. The Defendants? affirmative promises were of material fact and important as The Plaintiffs would not have otherwise made the adult videos. 167. The Defendants did not intend to perform these promises at the times they made them, and have not performed as promised. The Defendants knew their promises were false and merely wanted The Plaintiffs to make the videos for The Defendants? bene?t. 168. The Defendants intended to induce The Plaintiffs to alter their positions in reliance on the 25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT promises by making the adult videos. 169. The Plaintiffs justi?ably and reasonably relied on The Defendants? promises and The Defendants? af?rmative promises were an immediate cause of The Plaintiffs? conduct. 170. The Defendants did not perform the promises. 171. As an actual and proximate cause of The Defendants? false promises and The Plaintiffs? justi?able reliance, The Plaintiffs were damaged in that The Defendants posted the videos online, distributed the videos in the United States, and released The Plaintiffs? names. 172. The Plaintiffs? reliance on these false representations was a substantial factor in causing their harm. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least: serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, bullying, blackmail, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression-,- shame, and eompe-nsatory?damages, including, "but not limited to the difference in value in what the parties exchanged the money The Plaintiffs received for what they were told was limited distribution and what The Defendants pro?ted through global distribution); and restitution unjust enrichment damages (same calculation as the compensatory damages). The Plaintiff also seek injunctive relief. 173. The Defendants were acting individually and on behalf of each other when they made each of these omissions and, when one of them made a false promise, the others rati?ed it, and/or knew of the false promise and failed to correct it. 174. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this fraud as: (1) each of The Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally mislead The Plaintiffs at the time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 175. 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. 26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 176. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 177. During The Plaintiffs? discussions and negotiations with The Defendants before each made an adult video for The Defendants (and simultaneous with The Plaintiffs? attempted review of any purported agreements), The Defendants represented: they would not post the videos online (or cause such publication), they would not distribute the videos in the United States (or cause such publication), and that The Plaintiffs would remain anonymous. The Defendants further represented at all times to The Plaintiffs that would not cause the videos to be posted online or distributed in the United States. The Defend-ants at all times assured?The Plaintiffs- there-was? nothing- -t-o and said nobody The Plaintiffs knew would see the videos. The Defendants caused other women to reiterate these representations to The Plaintiffs. 178. The representations were false and although The Defendants may have honestly believed that the representations were true, they had no reasonable grounds for believing the representations were true when they made them. 179. The Defendants intended that The Plaintiffs would rely on the above representations in their decisions to make the adult videos. 180. The Plaintiffs reasonably relied on The Defendants? misrepresentations in their decisions to make the adult videos. 181. The Plaintiffs? reliance on The Defendants? false representations was a substantial factor in causing their harm in that The Defendants posted their videos online, published their videos in the United States, and released The Plaintiffs? names. 182. The Plaintiffs? reliance on these false representations was a substantial factor in causing their harm. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least, compensatory damages, including, but not limited to the difference in value in what the parties exchanged the money The Plaintiffs received for what they 27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT were told was limited distribution and what The Defendants pro?ted through global distribution). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION MISAPPROPRIATION OF NAME AND LIKENESS (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 183. The Plaintiffs incorpOrate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 184. The Defendants used The Plaintiffs? names, likenesses, and/or identities without The Plaintiffs? permission, though fraud, and/or without promised consideration, including, without limitation, on The Defendants? websites wrwgirlsdopomcom), social media, and advertising. Finally, any release purporting to give The Defendants unconditional use of The Plaintiffs videos is unenforceable due to unclear terms, a lack of mental capacity/competence, mistake, undue in?uence, and/or The Defendants? unclean hands. - 185. The Defendants? gained a commercial bene?t by using The Plaintiffs? names, likenesses, and/or identities. 186. The Plaintiffs? reliance on these false representations was a substantial factor in causing their harm. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least: serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, bullying, blackmail, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, and fear; compensatory damages, including, but not limited to the difference in value in what the parties exchanged the money The Plaintiffs received for what they were told was limited distribution and what The Defendants pro?ted through global distribution); and restitution unjust enrichment damages (same calculation as the compensatory damages). The Plaintiff also seek inj unctive relief. 187. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this tort as: (1) each of The Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally misappropriated The Plaintiffs? names, likenesses, and/or identities at the time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 188. The Defendants? actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore also warrant an award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION MISAPPROPRIATION OF LIKENESS CODE 3344] (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 189. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 190. On their websites social media, and other advertising, The Defendants knowingly used The Plaintiffs? names, voices, photographs, video, and likenesses to advertise or sell subscriptions to The Defendants? businesses. 191. The Defendants? use did not occur in connection with a news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or with apolitical campaign-,- -- . . 192. The Defendants did not have The Plaintiffs? consent, obtained it though fraud, and/or without promised consideration. Finally, any release purporting to give The Defendants unconditional use of The Plaintiff?s videos is unenforceable due to unclear terms, a lack of mental capacity/competence, mistake, undue in?uence, and/or The Defendants? unclean hands. 193. The Defendants use of The Plaintiffs? names, voices, photographs, video, and likenesses was directly connected to The Defendants? commercial purpose. 194. The Plaintiffs? reliance on these false representations was a substantial factor in causing their harm. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least: serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, bullying, blackmail, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, morti?cation, shame, and fear; compensatory damages and/or statutory damages, including, dis gorgement of pro?ts; attorney fees; and restitution unjust enrichment damages the money The Plaintiffs received for what they were told was limited distribution and what The Defendants pro?ted through global distribution). The Plaintiff also seek inj unctive relief. 195. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this tort as: (1) each of The Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 29 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants intentionally misappropriated The Plaintiffs? names, voices, photographs, video, and likenesses at the time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 196. The Defendants? actions were fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious and therefore also warrant an award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 197. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 198. The Defendants concealed the fact they run an online pornography website. In order to get The Plaintiffs to make adult videos, The Defendants "lied to The'Plaintiffs about" the distribution. They assured The Plaintiffs there was nothing to worry about and promised privacy. The Defendants knew all of the other young women whose lives they have irreparably damaged earlier by The Defendants? video publication and promotion; all of the other young women imploring them to stop and to take down their videos; and all of the complaints and they (and their legal counsel) have received from other young women and their families. The Defendants used The Plaintiffs? videos and names to commercially promote their websites and enrich themselves. This conduct was outrageous as it exceeded all bounds of common decency usually tolerated by a civilized society. 199. The Defendants intended to in?ict the injuries stated herein upon The Plaintiffs, or the injuries were substantially certain to result from The Defendants? conduct. 200. The Defendants? outrageous conduct actually and proximately caused The Plaintiffs to suffer serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, mortification, shame, fear, and for some - consideration of suicide. The Plaintiffs have been harmed in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff. 201. The Defendants also acted in a conspiracy when they committed this tort as: (1) each of The Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of action to injure The 30 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ?4(3th Plaintiffs; (2) pursuant to their agreement, with their outrageous conduct, The Defendants intentionally in?icted severe emotional distress upon The Plaintiffs at the time and place and via the manner set forth above; and (3) pursuant to their agreement, The Defendants injured The Plaintiffs, as set forth above. 202. 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. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 500) 203. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 204. In their transactions and dealings with The Plaintiff, The Defendants had a duty to use ordinary care and to prevent-injury to The Plaintiffs based on the foreseeabi-lity of harm to The Plaintiffs, ?the degree of certainty The Plaintiff would suffer injuries, the closeness of connection between The Defendants? actions and The Plaintiffs? injuries, the moral blame attached to The Defendants? conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, and the extent of The Defendants? burden and the consequences to the community of imposing duty and liability. 205. The Defendants? above-described actions and omissions lying about and concealing the fact they run an online pornography website upon which they planned to post the videos; and assuring The Plaintiffs there was nothing to worry about all while knowing that release of the Videos would cause harassment and severe emotional damage), breached the duty of care. 206. The Defendants? breach of the duty of care actually and proximately caused The Plaintiffs harm in an amount to be proven at trial, but that is, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff, and consists of, at least: serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, bullying, blackmail, loss of eating, loss of sleep, enduring fright, shock, nervousness, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, morti?cation, shame, and fear; compensatory damages, including, but not limited to the difference in value in what the parties exchanged the money The Plaintiffs received for what they were told was limited distribution and what The Defendants profited through global distribution); and restitution unjust enrichment damages (same calculation as the compensatory damages). The Plaintiff also seek 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT injunctive relief. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 207. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 208. The Plaintiffs entered into oral agreements with The Defendants whereby The Plaintiffs agreed to make their respective videos with the conditions: they would not post the videos online (or cause such publication), they would not distribute the videos in the United States (or cause such publication), and they would ensure their privacy and anonymity. 209. The Plaintiffs performed all of their obligations under the agreements; in particular, they participated in the video shoots. 210. All conditions required for The Defendants? performances occurred, but they breached the contract by distributing and/or causing the videos to be posted online and in the United States, and by failing to ensure The Plaintiffs? privacy and anonymity. Also, as set forth above, some of The Plaintiffs- did not receive the sums agreed upon for their video(s). 211. As an actual and proximate cause of The Defendants? breach, The Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but believed to be, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 212. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 213. The Defendants made clear and unambiguous promises to The Plaintiffs that: they would not post the videos online (or cause such publication), they would not distribute the Videos in the United States (or cause such publication), and they would ensure their privacy and anonymity. 214. The Plaintiffs relied on these promises in that they made the videos. 215. The Plaintiffs? reliance was both reasonable and foreseeable. 32 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 216. The Plaintiffs were injured as a result in that The Defendants distributed or cause the distribution of the videos online and in the United States, and failed to ensure The Plaintiffs? privacy and anonymity. 217. Injustice can be avoided only by an award of compensatory and consequential damages in the amount of, at least, $500,000 per plaintiff. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, et seq. (All The Plaintiffs against All Named Defendants and ROES 1 - 500) 218. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 219. The Defendants? conduct constitutes a ?business practice? under Business Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq. (?Section 17200?). 220. The Defendants? ?business practice? constitutes ?unlawful? conduct under Section 17200, as it violates common and California statutory law. The Defendants? ?business practice? constitutes ?fraudulent? conduct under Section 17200, as it deceives and is likely to deceive members of the public. 221. The Defendants intended their conduct to cause - and it did so cause - The Plaintiffs to suffer economic injury in fact and caused The Defendants to receive ill-gotten gains. The Plaintiffs were damaged and The Defendants unjustly enriched - in an amount to be proven at trial, but believed to be, at least, $5 00,000 per plaintiff. As such, The Plaintiffs have individual standing under Section 1 7200. 222. Pursuant to the remedies provisions of Section 17200: The Defendants owe The Plaintiffs restitution of The Plaintiffs? property videos and images); the Court should enjoin The Defendants? violative conduct; and the Court should issue the maximum civil penalties permitted. 33 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TWELTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUDULENT TRANSFER (All The Plaintiffs against All The Named Defendants and ROES 475 - 550) 223. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs contained in this complaint as though set forth herein, including, without limitation, the agency and alter ego allegations. 224. The Plaintiffs have a right to payment from The Defendants for the claims in this action and are, thus, creditors. 225. On information and belief, The Defendants transferred The Plaintiffs? Videos and the revenue generated therefrom to defendant Oh Well Media Limited (a sham entity in Vanuatu used to hide assets) and ROES 200 250 with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud The Plaintiffs in their collection efforts on the subject claims. 226. The Plaintiffs were harmed as, among other things, they still have not received compensation for the claims in this action. 227. The Defendants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing The Plaintiffs? harm. 228. The Defendants? actions were fraudulent and malicious and therefore warrant an award of punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294 of the California Civil Code. 34 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LinksPRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiffs pray for judgment against The Defendants as follows: For civil penalties; For an injunction; For punitive damages; For attorney fees; For prejudgment interest; mowwpows For costs of suit; and Date: December Q, 2016 35 For compensatory damages of, at least, $7,000,000; For restitution and ill? gotten gains/unjust enrichment; For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. By: John J. O?Brien Robert Hamparyan John J. O?Brien Brian M. Holm Attorneys for Plaintiffs FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT