SUMMUNS FindLaw (CITACION JUDICIAL) ORIGIN: AL WwW. FINDLAW.COM cau NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (Aviso.a Acusado) DEFENDANT DOE 1; DEFENDANT DOE 2; and ROES 1 through 100, inclosive Vou ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (A Ud. le estd demandando) JANE DOE 44 Vou have 20 CALENDAR DAYS after this sum- Después do que 10 entreguen esto eitacién judicial usted Yow wt 30 CALENDAR PALS, ‘ypewriten fe: tare um plese dc 90 DINE EALENDARIOR para precontar Sponse st tris cour. Una recpuosts escrita 9 méquina en esta carte Diener or phone call wil net protect you: your Une carta © uno lismada teleténica no le, offecerd A etelien expense must be’ in proper leasl — proteccién; sv respuesta escrita a méquing tiene ove Porm if you want the court to hear your ease. Pimmpir can las Tormalizades logalos apropiades of uated you do not fle your rasponse ontime, you may V8 v8 eae Iotetne cae an yeu wages, money endpre, Sue presanta ou respuncts timed, puede pardey frecoun : STR caah SU Sasa sere aor cons. ‘Tnore are other legal requirements. You may Existen otras requsilos legales. Puede que usted quisra There, are ote ony Hight way, you donot — flamer a un abogedo inmediatamente. Si no conoce # un TAD tamay oun eta ney ee eee a gel efenencia, de SH a ear dgil aid ofice (isted inthe phone abogados © 3 Una eficina de syude legal (veo o! directorio 30h). teleténico). — ram (enor y Sec de eee ee) a POSE NGETES SURERION COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT BC SOCE74 100 Nore Hill Steet Los Angeles. Californie 90012-9317 “je ane, acess. ar eprone narbr elite aay, et witox nate, Ta a ttre de elon ce sbagace ol comencri, © el gemandane que no ane abogad, ) Kepmond 8 Seu Ese 55) RIESEL, BOUCHER & ; ha 8648 Wilshire Boulevard a Bevery Hille Calif SOHN A. CLARI onre: DEC 0 9 2002 RCE sem: » ow (ctste) = Deputy {betegsco) NOTICE To THE PERSON SERVED: Youare sored 1. Jae an avout efoncant 2. (Se ne peraon suas uncer ne teins name et (epee: 3. [Jon bohat of (speci: voaae: i] cch 416.0 conenton (exe aes rion COP 416.20 foetunet carporetion) TL] cee 416.70 (conservatee) Ger sted (soon © peer] Cece aso tase . one ~% by personel annvery on roar Fann pao ey 82 (G20 reverse for Proot of Serlce) Hota Gives scales saligaalSewcvalceiors Mandatory Form ‘SUMMONS, cep i220 REPO TITIO nil Coma Form oH ™10 u 12 as 4 —_— Ss — ad COPY 4 P. Boucher, SBN 115364 Aatrony M De Marco, SEN 1081s3 Kivsel Boucher & Lerson LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard ORIGINAL FILED Beverly Mile, Galeria £0211-2510 ‘lephone: 4444 Facamie: S107854,0812 Dec 09 2002 Jeffrey R, Anderson, Esq. LOS ANGELES Reinhardt £ Ancarnon. E-1000 First National Bank Bidg. SUPERIOR COURT 32 Minnesota Street Si, Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone: 651/237.9880 Facsimile: 651/439.4151 Attorneys for Plaintt, JANE OUE 44, incivisually superior court or the stare or cauronna — FILED B FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. JANE DOE 44, individually, CASE NUMBER: BC 286674 Plaintiff, COMPLAINI FOR DAMAGES: FOR: v. 1 Meptigent B DEFENDANT DOE 1; DEFENDANT DOE 2; Failure to Wam, and, ROES 1 through 160, inclusive, Negligence; Childhood Sexual Abuse; Defendente. Seaual Saueryy an, Breach of Fiduciary Duty. NATURE OF ACTION 1. For far too many years, certain adult individuals in the modeling industry tion! Supericion/ geen have sexually preved upon underage models. All the while, Nafanciants knew euch vile practices were occurring, and even participated in the practices, yet failed to take reasonable stepe to ensure the safety of these children and to prevent fulure acts of molestation. Defendants’ despicable conduct has resulted in a legacy of pain and emotional devastativn. This sult seeks compensation for the sexual abuse and the mental and emotional distress caused by it. 2 Allallegations in this Complaint are based on information and belief except Complaint for Damoges NY FAX aes tiestbeuteswon ee ea for those allegations which pertain to the Plaintiff named herein and her counsel. Plaintiff's: information and belief are based upon, inter alia, the investigation conducted to date by Plaintiff and her counsel. Each allegation in this Complaint either has, or is likely to have, evidentiary support upon further investigation and discovery. PARTIES 3, Plainitt Jane Due 44 (hereinafter “Plaintiff, ie an adult female resident of the state of California. At all times material, Plaintiff was a minor and a resident of California 4. Defendant Doe 1 is the founder of Defendant Doe 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Doe 1 was also the chairman of Defendant Dos 2 until 2000. Currently, Defendant Doe 1 is tho honorary chairman ‘of the “Elite Model Look” contest, On information and belief, throughout his tenure with Defendant Doe 2, Defendant Doe 1 made a habit of seducing, sexually exploiting and abusing many 1inor girls, Atal timoe Defendant Doe 1 maintained a residence in the State of California. 5, Defendant Doe 2 is and at al times relevant was a corporation, incorporated in California and daing business in California. Defendant Doe 2 at all relevant times maintained it principal place of business in Hollywood, California. The talent agency contract entered into between Plairiff and Defendant Doce 1 and 2 was entered into and executed at the offices of Defendant Doe 2 located in Hollywood, California. The Contract between Defendant Does 1 & 2 on the one hand and Plaintiff on the other hand specified, that any disputes between the parties shall be resolved according to California law. 6. _ Defendant Doo? states that tis the leading model management agency with gross billings near $100 million. Founded in 1983, by Defendant Doe 1 and Alain Kitler, Defendant Doe 2 represents more than 750 models tnroughwut thy wurld. Defendant Doo 2 has 31 agencies and two regional coordination offices within its network of operations. Defendant Doe 2 has offices throughout in the United States, including, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angelco, Miami and New Yrk In addition to its model management operations, > ‘Complaint for Damages