Rob Lowe and Sheryl Lowe v. Laura Boyce and Does 1 through 100 - Lawsuit Against Ex_Nanny


Published on

Rob Lowe and Sheryl Lowe vs. Laura Boyce and Does 1 through 100 - Lawsuit Against Ex_Nanny.
"Rob Lowe", "Sheryl Lowe", "Laura Boyce", "Does 1 through 100", "Jessica Gibson"

Published in: Self Improvement
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rob Lowe and Sheryl Lowe v. Laura Boyce and Does 1 through 100 - Lawsuit Against Ex_Nanny

  1. 1. Fp r 07 2O O g 4: 5 6 P t l p. 1 -ic . I DREIER STEIN KAHA}I BROryNEWOODSGEORGE LLP Sanon L. Stein(SBN 045997) 3 lstein(ddreierstcin, com FredBl Griffrn (SBN 066027) LOS.,#?PP* fgriffi n@dreicrstei 4 Muibeth Annaguey (SBN228431) mannaguey@dreierstein.oom N 5 TheWaterCruden 162026lh Steet "a, 6 6th Floor, North Tower SantaMonisq CA 90404 q { N"7 8 Telephone; 10.828.9050 3 3 Facsimile: 10.828.9 l0l H AtlomeysforPlaintilh G 9 io 7la ROB LOWE and SHERYL LOSf,E SUPERIORCOURTOF T}IE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ,gi !r Ff rJ te 0 ,B9 t2 l2 COTJNTY LOS ANGELES OF a o t3 ROB LOWE, an individual;andSHERYL c As ENo. 8C388579 zo ]tl LOWE, anindividual, v) t4 COMPLAINT FOR: o Plaintiffs, v o o l5 (r) BREACII OF WRITTEN CONTRACT zF v9, (CONfl DENTHLITY AGREEMENT); |ll EI F 7 t6 ct tAIrM BOYCE,ar individua!and 4 F {Z, I}EFAFIATION; EI o 1 7 DOESI through inchxive, 100, q fran (3) BREACA Or DrrIY OF LOYALIY; & ct r8 Defcndaffi. (4) BREACHOr flDUCIARY DUTY; 19 (5) TNTENTTONAL TNFLTCTTONOF 20 EMOTIONAL IIISTRESS; 2r (o NEGLTGET{TINELICTION OF EMOTIONAL IIISTRESS; 22 (7 INTENTIONAL fiSgEI 23 irsnnpnrsENrArroN(oMrss$pf g F 24 (B) IEGLrcENr MrsRgEE$DthiBtd# (ourssrox)i FFof u25 s.,F s=s - 6 { ro ar) 26 za lJ t; fi ,. 8{. Lo13ifi t 27 gll co rG e J (i t:4 FJ28 Ll F? c,r = a U 95t090_l.DoC COMPI.AINT
  2. 2. Ffp r 07 2O O B 4: 5 6 P1 1 p.2 t I Plaintiffs Rob Lowe (Rob Lowe") andSherylLowc (She;ryl Lowe) (collectively 2 LauraBoyoe,an indMdual "Plaintiffs" or lhe "Lowcs), for $eir complaintagainstDefendant 3 ("Defendant"); andDOBS I tluough100,inqlusive, allcgeasfollows: 4 NATTJREO.FIHp ACTTON 5 1- We livc in an agewhereinformmioncanbc distributedworldwidein a matsr of 6 seconds.That tlpe of access, combin€dwith the publics ttrirst for detailsaboutthe pdvatelives 7 ofcelebrities, hasforccd celebrities zealously to grrardtbeir privacy andthe prinacy interests of I their loved ones. This r€quiresthat those their employbe rrsnrrorthy andloyal bccause in aoy 9 information abouta celebrityfrom his/lreranployee- no mau€rhow patentlyfalse- will be 1 0 instanhneouslydisseminated (at leastinitially) believedtobe true, As sct forth in this and O. ll LauraBoyoe,a formeremployee the Loweswho wasohargcd laursuit, of with lhe careof thcir "l Fl lll 1 2 two childruruhasmadestatemenb violuion of ber prorfse not tq andhasmadefaleo in (? & o l3 aboutRob Lowe andhis wife, Sheryl[,owe. The effect of her betayal reaches slatcrneots far -Fl 1e ;tn t4 buyondpossiblymarring the Lowos imagein thepublic eyc,tut hasalreadycaused a <ti v6 l5 Semendowamountof barmto the entirefamily. Thry areall now grapplingwiththe rcality tbat z,> Fl st =z I6 who waspart of their lives for thc last year ol so hasbee,n someone disclosingdctailsabouther zo ;fi > t7 crnplolmcnt with them aod evenmorecgregiouslSlying aboutthe oonditionsin which she 4& EE A t8 uorked. By hcr intentionalandmaliciouscondust in completedisregardfor the futh or the r9 confidences entnrstcdto hcr, Dcfendanthascausedsubstantial harrnto thc lowcs, The Lowcs 20 bring this suit to sct the rocordshaightandto lake a standagaiostall thosewho, by beuayingthe 2l confidences thoscthey workfor, celebrityor not, scekto oapitalizeon their positionsfor their of 22 own Enancialbenefit anil to tbe emotionalandfinancialdstrimentof their cmployers. 23 JURISDTCTIONAND {ENUE 24 2. This Court hasjurisdiotion ovcr lhis action pursuantto its gencnal jurisdiaion #zs il Powerssetforth in dre Constitutionof tbe Sate of Califomia and becarue arnoun in the t i26 controv€rsy cxceeds $25,000. r. it 12? 3. The Lowes areinficrrned belierre, on that basisallegg that vqruo in this and and Countyis pmperbecause Defendant lhe resides the Couutyof Los Angeles. in b28 tt gscpo_r,Doc _z- r. CPMPLAINT
  3. 3. Ffp r O ? 2O O g 4: 5 6 PM p. 3 I THE PARTIES ) 4, PlaintiffRob Lowe is an individualresidingin the Countyof Sana Barbara.He is 3 a well-known actorvrho hasbad may leadandsupportingroleson Elcvision, film andthcahe. 4 5, PlaintiffSherylLoua is an individual residing the Countyof Santa in Barbara. f Sheis the wife of Rob Lowe andhasbeena make-upatist for telcvisionand filrn. 6 6. The l,owes malntaintheir r€sidence Santa in Barbara. I 7. Lawa Boyce,an individual,is a fomer employee the Lourcs, Shemaintainsher of E residence thc County of Ins Angelcs. in 9 8. The Lowesare irfonned andbclieve,andon tbat basisall"ge, pursuant Codoof 1o t0 Civil Proccdure Section474rtbatthe fiotitiouslynaurodDefendants suedhereinasDOES I A 1l through100,inclwivc, andcachof themwcrc in somemarucrrcsponsible legallyliablefor or -t Fl El t2 theactions,evcnls,transactions circumstanccs and allegedberein. The rue ftrmeeandcapacities (, & o l3 of suchfictitiously namedDefendants, whetherindividual,corporate, assooiate, othennise, or arc lrl 33 - t4 pesently unlcnown the Lowes. TheLoweswill soekleaveof this Court to amendthis !o TR !46 l5 Complaintto asscfr&e eue lrameo capacities suchfictitiously nanredDefendants and of uilrenthe 4> ltl cl 1 6 same becnascertained. convenience, reference Defendants has For .1 , each to shallincludetbeDOE 7/ -, 1 7 Defendants, eachof them. BoyceanddreDOE Defendants be collectiv€lyrefe,lred as and shatl to 2n A 1 8 Defcndants. l9 9. Thp Lowes areinformcdandbclieve,andon that basisallegc,that Def€ndaols, and 20 eachoftherq mc and wereat all timeshoreinmentioned, agents, the joint etnployoes, senrants, 2l venhuers, co-conqpirators eachof the otherDefendants, at all tirosshereinnrentioned or of and 22 were aotingwithin thc courseandscopeof saidsgmW, employuen" or servicein filtherance of 23 thejoint vcntuIeor conspiracy, 24 ll ill 2 5 tl t .i i26 tl Ezt /l I ) i.28 tn 958090_t.DOC n COMPLAINT
  4. 4. Ffp r O 7 2O O g 4: 5 6 P M p.4 I GENERAL FACKqROUI{D 2 10. Rob lowe is a rcll-known celebritywho hasbeenin the public cye for many J yeaxs. Due to his celcbrity sktus andthc publics seeming unqucnchablethirst for the intirratc 4 detailsof all cclebritics, Rob Lowemust- asmwt all celebrities be abloto tnrstNs cmployces - 5 not to discloseanv informationor detailspertaining Ns personallifc bccause to suchinfouration 6 maybe disseminatcd the globalpublicjn a matter scconds. to of 7 I t. Thus,all employees ofthe Lowes,andin particularthoseernployees who work in E 6e lowes household bavehelpedto carefor the Lowes childrerl re roquiredto sign a and 9 confidendalityagreernent a conditionof their gmploFtrent, The confidentialityagEement as l0 providesin relevantpafl that thc employcc: F{ il Srill not givc an/ interviews(whether oral or written) or wrile or J prcpar€, assist or inpreparation anybooks,articles, of priograrns,or lTl t2 otlrcr oral or rnnittencommunications dealingwith the business or (f c personal affairsof the Lowes andthe [.owEsParties,nor o l3 confirm or denyanyinfonnadonof any kind (whetherrumorpdor -c I J ee known in any wey) relatingto business personalaffairs of rhe or 14 olov/Esandthe ;ra LowesParti€s." JO FO l5 e Et > Ft l6 IIpFENDAI{TS pMpLOyMENT WITH TIIE LOWES 2a 6 E qE 17 12. workedfor the [-owpsoverthe last year or so :ts a f,aflnyto their two Defendant !+€ ct l8 sons,Matthcw andJobn Owen(eolloctivelywith the Lowes,the T-owe Fanrily). As a condition t9 of hct employment, (the "Confidentiality Dcfendantsigneda confidendalityagreement 20 Agreement)jwt as every otherenrployee thc Lowes hassigncd of 2l 13, gcnerdlyworkod2-4 daysper weekfor appmximately Defendant 8-10hours, 22 rnoreandtravcledwith the [.oweaon at loasttwo family vacations. sometimes 23 14. Over the coutscof her employment, Defendantdeveloped closerelrtionshipwith a 24 theLoweFamily andfreely talkedaboutpersonal intirnatedetailsaboutberpersonal with and life ,r 25 Shcryland otheremployees fliends of thc Lowcs, and tl 126 il I 27 Y_ tl /ze i+ 95a090_t.Doc $ COMPLAINT
  5. 5. Fp n 07 2O O g 4: 5 6 Pt t .P-:J-==_ 1 15, failedto reponto work andfailedto ln or aboutNovenrler200?,Defendant 2 callsandmessages behalfof theLowestrying to loceteher. After the reapond numerous to on 3 I,owes caused missirg personsre,port befiled on her behaf, Defendantcontactod Lowes a rc the 4 throughone of their e,oployees indicated shewould not be rcturningto work urd th* 5 i6. SinceDefendarrts departure, LowcshavelcarnedthatDefgndant sudden the had, 6 betrayedtheir tust anil hasalsoengaged a scherne hurrthe lowes by on scvcraloccasions, in to 7 maliciouslies abouteach them. sprcading of I 17. SinceDefendant herjob,the lnwes havealsobeeninformed abandoned and 9 believe, on that basisallege, and with anothqformer thatDefendant been,andis, conspiring has t0 employeeandthird partiesto spreadmaliciouslies aboutthe Lovrcsto damage Lowes the o< ll r€putation. J F: lq t2 18. Suchconduct, onoof theirtrusted by employees, takcna significurttoll onthe has & o t3 entirefamily. The Inrvss arefearftl of their safetyespeciallyin light of Deftndants appalent *l l J 4r *o t4 conte,Ept the Lowes andher openlyadminingto lleing involvedwith violent andphysicalty for JF l5 abttsivepeople. z, Ft tu f^z 16 ::> FIRST CAUSE OXACTION fio =d t7 (Brcech of lYritten Conract -- Confidentirlilv Acrcernent) P rn l8 A 19. The Lowes reallegeandiucorpomte reference by hereineachof theallegationsin l9 ParagnphsI througlt 18, above. 20 20, Defendanthasmatcrially breached ConfrdentialityAgreemeut amongother the by, 2l &ings, discussing Lowes business pcrsonalaffsirs with third partiesduring andaftcr hcr the and 22 with the Lowes. e,uployment 23 21. The Lowes havefully perfomred of their dutiesand obligationsin connection all 24 fureemenq exceptfor thoseduticsand obligationsdratharrc with tlre Confideartiality be€o U 25 -i cxcused rendered or Incapableof performingdueto Defc,ndants breaches thc Confidentiality of 26 g Agreement wt forth above, as ? 27 a4 2t g 9r8090_t.DOC Lr COMPLAINT
  6. 6. Rp r o7 2O O g . 1: 5 ? P l 1 p. 6 l 22, As a directandforeseeable resultof Defondants breaches theConfidentiality of ) Agrcement, Lowes havesufferedgeneral,specificandincideutaldamages an amountlo be the in ? prove,n trial. at 4 SECONDCAUSDOF ACTION 5 (I)efemstion) 6 23, and The Lowesreallege incorporate refcrence by bercineach the allegaions of in 7 Paragraphs throughZ2,above. I I 24. The Lowesareinformed believe, based and and thereon that in thc lastfew allege, 9 months,Defendant madesevcralfalsc anddcfamatory bas aboutthe lowes, statpments l0 25, The statements Defendant by against Lowesarc falseaodde&nalory and the A ll Expose Lowcsto hatcd, conlcmpqridicule andobloqun and/orcause the them to be shuffpd or J FJ trl tz avoidodandtend to injure them in their occupations. frl & o l3 26. The lnwes ale informedandbelievg andbasedtherconallege,that Defendant -q) ; u) 1 4 rnadethe falseand defrrnatorystatements issuewith knowlodgeof their fatsity and/orwith at <ti v5 l5 rccklessdisregad for their tnrth or falsity. => !c EJ Frt t6 27. As a direot andproximarcresultoflhe abovodescribsdconductby Defcndant, thc 27 sv l7 l,owesbavesuffercdgeneral qpecial and darmages an amountto be determined fial but in at Hn l8 believed be no lessthan$1,000,000.00, to inoludingwithoutlirnitatioq darnagc the lrcwes a to t9 reputalions, oarEenand standing thecormmrrnity. in 20 28, The lowts ae informedand beliwg andbasodthereonallege,tbat Defendant 2t taud andmaliceard that,tberefore,her conductjustifies an awardof actcdwith opprcasion, 22 punitiveandexemplarydalages. 23 THIRD CAUSE OTACTION 24 (Breachof the Dutv of Lovaltv) 6 25 29, Tho Lowesreallcgcandincorporate reference by hereineachof ttreatlegations in I 26 Paragraphs through28, above, I fi 27 il 28 o 95EtD0_t.DOC .G at COMPLAINT
  7. 7. Rpn 07 2O O g 4:5 ? Pl 1 p.? I 30. Deftndant asthenannyandcaretaker the Lowes children, ourcda duty to for z give the Lowes hErundividedloyalty andnot to takeanyactionsduring her employment that 3 wouldbe detimenlal to the l,owcsor their childrcn.This included duty of loyattynot lo useor a 4 discloseconfidentialinformation,assct fortb in thc Confidentialityfureemenf obtaincd and by 5 revpaled her during the coruseandscope her emplolme,lrr to of eitherfor her own personal use 6 anddealingor to tre detiment of the Lowee. 7 31. The Lowes areinformedandbelieve,andbasedtherconallcge,thatDefendant I hcr brcachcd duty of loyatty by tbe actsard conduot allegedherein,including (1) impermissibly 9 disclosiugthe Lowes confideNdial inforrration b third parties,and (2) mafting libelous 10 statomeffsagainstRob Lowe andSherylInwe. trr ll 32, By virtre of Dcfcndants breach herdutyof loyalty,the Loweshavebeen of Fl rJ t2 jn darnaged an amountnot yet dctermined, to bc provcd at bial, but rr1 -() d, o l3 33. The Lowcs arc informedandbelieve,andhsed theroonallege,that Defendant lrl -2 . 6 Ei (A l4 knewabouther dutiesandobligationsto the lawes, yet intentionaltydisreprded thos€ <it vE l5 reqPonsibilities doing the ostsdcscribed in hercrn,with the intemto causedctrimentto thc Lowcs z> FE l6 andfor her own persorral gain and interest.In dolngso, Defendanlactedwirh oppression, fiaud2=i.oFg t7 andmalice,and on this basis,the Lowesrcquestthatpunitivedamagcs assessed bc againstsl ea l8 in Defbndant an amountto be determined the hier of fact. by l9 rouRTrr oI, cAUsE acTIoN 20 (Breochof Fidnciarv Duties) 2l 34, The Lowes reallegcandincorporate rcference by helein eachof the allegations in 22 Paragrapho through 33, above- I 23 35. At all timcs rclcvanthercto,Dcfcndant owed fiduciary obligationsandduticsto 24 lhe Lowesby virtuc ofher statusasa nannychargodwith the careof the Lowes ohildren. In fris g2s capacity, bad acce$tto pcrsonalandprivalc inforrnationpcrtainingto every membcrof the she !t -r 26 LoweFarnily- I 827 b" 9tt090_t.Doc COMPLAINT
  8. 8. Ffp n O ? 2O O g 4: 5 8 P 1 l p. 8 I 36. The Lowesareinformedandbeliew, andbasedthereonallege,that Defendanr 2 her broached fiduciary obligations dutiesowedto the lowes in doing the aclsdesoribod aod { hereinincluding(l)disclosingconfidenrtial information theLowesto third parties; (2) of and 4 dctails,in profaneandwlgar while on-duty asa oanny,rcvcalingintimac andsalacious 5 a[egiEdlyaboutherpersonal andthat oflrer boyfricnds, Suchbrcaches language, life caused 6 da:nage the Lowes. to 7 37. As a pnoximaie resultof saidbreachof fiduciary obligationsandduties,the l.owes E havebeenandwill be damaged anamowt wbichwill be provodat trial, but whichec<cceds in the I minimurnj urisdlcdonalanrormt. l0 38. The Lowcs arc informedandbelicw, andbasedthereonallegg that Defendant tr ll to yet knewabouther dutiesandobligations theLowps, intentionally those disregarded dutiesand _l FI T2 obligationsin doing the actsdesuibodherein,with the intont to barmthe lnwes andfor ho o,np I A d o t3 gpin and interest In doingso, Defendant personat actedwith oppressiorg fraud andrnalice,and -E l 19 lc a l4 on this basis,the Lowes request punitive danagcsbc asseseod thst agoinstDefendant an in :A l!O FO t5 amormttobe dcte,mined atAial. 1> tu l a F> t6 rIFTrr cAusEoF AgTroN 3E g) E9 t7 OntentlonalIn lliction of Emotional Dl stres ae A l8 39. The Lowesrcallegeandincorporate rcferenoe by hereineaohofthe allesdisas in I9 I Paragraphs through 38, above. 20 40. Dnuingand afterher emplopnentwith the Lowes, Defendantknew that theLowcs 2l werepartisularly susceptible any statements to thatwould undqmrinetheh reputations good as 22 parents, open-mindcdandprogressirrc individuals,faltbfirl asspouses rospectftrl othen and of 23 becaweof Rob Lorves cclebrity$anrs. 24 4l Defendastalsokncnthat lhc lrwes arc protectivcof their children andstriveto fi 25 bepositiverole modelsfor the childra andto havcpositlverole modelsaroundthc children. She t! i 26 knewthatthe Lowesareraisingtheir childrenin accordance SherylLowesJewish with religion s 7n andmorals. Shchcw tharthe Lowesumuldbe susccptibtc any conductthat miglrrjeopardize to 28 thc healthn safcty or rnoralrrpbringing rheir ohildrcn. of H s 9JE090-I.DC -8- COMPLAINT
  9. 9. Ffp r 07 2008 4: 5 8 P M p. 9 I Def€ndantalsoknewthatthe Lowesareprotcetiveof their privacy andpersonal 2 space, 3 43- while on-dufyandoffduty is outrageowandbeyondthe Defendantscondrrct 4 of person zuchthat no reasonable bounds decenoy to couldbe expected ondureit, 5 44. Defbndalts stalernents conduct dirtcted at, andtrget, eaahof the Lowes and are 6 susceptibilities asto cause so themthc mostda.magc, a result,the Lowes harre As suffercd 7 damagec that they havebeenforcedto en&rregreatmentalanguish,divlress,shock, in I hurniliatiolUfeelings of helplessness ilrey art underattack. as 9 45. As a directandproximate malioious, rezultof theintentional, harmful,unlawful l0 the swerEand seriousinj,rry, including andoffensiveactsof Defeirdant, Loweshavesustained tu ll but not limited to severe humiliatio& andmentalanggishdl to tttc Lowcs in emotionaldisfiess, _1 E: H r. t.r theninimum jurisdictional amount. an anrolrritwhich will bs provcd at rial, but which exceeds () 513 46. hercin Defendatt sct€dilith olryrtssion,fraudand In doing thc astsdescribed - lfl -1 fr s; 14 malice,and on this basis,thc Lowesrequest punitive damages asscssed that be against Defendant tR vd 15 in an amountto be det€rnined by thc tricr of fast. 7,> Fg 16 srxrH cAUsE AcTroN or 2F Eg t 7 ,q al lNesllqentInfliction of DmolionelDistrcss) 618 47. in Tbe Lowps reallcgeandincorporate rcfcrencehercin eacbof tlre allegations by l9 Paragraphs tlrough 46, abovc, I 20 48. owtd a dutyto the Lowespursusntto (l) her employment Defetrdaot relationship 2l with themwhcrebyshewaschargedwith thecareandsupervisionof their two yourg sons,drd 22 (2) the ConfidentialityAgreemeot with the Loweswherebysheagreedrnt to disclosoany 23 informationaboutthe Lowesto anythird puty at anytime (cxceptwhencompelledby legal 24 process), $25 49. knew, or shouldhaveknowa,that her failure to exerciseduecaroin (1) Defendant IT i2 6 thc performance her dutiesasthe naruryfor the Lowcs children ard (2) thc performance of il prusuaut the Confidentialily Agreement to would cause Lowes sever€ the emotisnaldistress. 727 I ;r 28 t.! tt 958000_t.Doc Lr COMPLAINT
  10. 10. Ffp n A 7 2O O B 4: 5 8 P M p. 1o I a 50. Defendant heachedthose has duties (l ) makingfalseanddefanatory by 2 statments aboutthe Lowesmd (2) disolosingpersonal informarionaboutthc lnwcs, both mre 3 anduntnre,to third paftigs. 4 5l, As a poximate resultof Defeudants constitutingbrcachcs his dutiesto the acts of 5 Lowes,the Lowes havesustained qrd sevsro serieusinjury, includingbut not limiled to severe 6 distress, emotional humiliation, rnental and anguish to thc LowBsdamage anamount all in which 7 will be provedat trial. 8 SEVPNTH CAUSEOFACTION 9 flntentionalMisreoresentelion Omissiou) - l0 52. The Lowts reallcgcandincorporate refarence by trenein eactrof the allegationsin or 1l I Paragraphs through51,above, F.l dtz o 53. Dcfcndarq by virtue of her fidrriary ernployment relationshipwith $e lowes and 6 13 frrrtherby virtue of her obligationpwsuantto the ConfidentialityAgrcement,owed tbc Lowcs a _a 3: u duty to fi.illy and complaely disclose tho Louresany andall oonfidentialinformationaboutthe to i n l5 vd Lowesthat sheintendodto disclosetothird parties. 4> Hg 16 54. At all titnes relerrant herein,Defcndantfailed to discloseto the lorrres,and 2F Eg t7 from the l,owes,the fact that shehadviolatedthe ConfidentialityAgreenccrtand suppressed H r8 discloscdpersonalinformationof theLowcglo third parties. The supprosdon thcsefactswas of t9 likely to mislead Lowcs,ancldid in factmislead lowps in light of Dcfcndants the the continucd 20 with ths Lowes. employment 2l 55. Defendantsfailuresro disclose informationand sup,prcssions thc the of 22 informationallegedhereinweredonewith rhe intentionto inducethe l,owes to oontinuously ?3 employDdendant. 24 /l It $2s u i26 ll f i| 4 2 7 il izs 7_2 s 9s8090-l.Doc COMPLAINT
  11. 11. Rpr 07 2008 4: 5 9 P1 l p. l1 APn- 0?- 3008 t 2t 2 1 P.002 I 56, thercfailur* to discloec rupprcssion faots Thstowc*, et thc tinres and of and 2 occunrd, at tlrctimcrhcl,owcstookthcrcllons wcreigrrorant thc hcrcin, allogcd of 3 oftfie focte otict€nss u,hich supprctsed failedto disclosc. thc lpweshadbecn Defendarl and lf 4 of not by thc wouldnothevgasdrey awtt of tlrecxlstrnce rhefacts discloeed Defcoder4 L,owcs 5 dl4 oontintnd havo to cmpbycdDefsndad, allowsd rllowcdDcfcndant sarcfor theirchildrcn. to 6 esccnb tlpir homce rllowcdDcfcnd*ot Dcfendant or ssoers thcirconfidcnrial to informarion. 7 57. As a prorcirnatc of Defcndants rcgult flauduhnt facc endhcr faifurcto dis{lose 8 supprersion oflbcrsasallegod krein, theLnwcs !o DefcnduLcontinucd continued ernploy to 9 allowDsfendant carcfortheirshildnn,csntinued dlow Defendant to to to apccss theirhomes sccstrto thcltggnfijsfiialinfomationby mson of which t0 rnd continuad allov/Defcndant to o ll Dofbndntt bccnrmjueily has cnriched, J i tz 58. mnduclof Dvftndant doncby Defendmt Thsafotqnentioncd was wtth$c {2 6t3 inentlonof causingthe conducr subjcotcd l,owcs a Lowerinjuryrnd war dospicable thal the b eF! *; 14 cnrclandunfust in dirrcgard theirrighls. By rcssonof sushcondust, hErdEhip conscious of the iB r5 cxcmplary punitivodanagcs l,owcsarccntilledto recover ud Defendant agninst E} Pg 16 nrcrms cAUsE AqTIQN oF 3i HP I? (Ncrlircot lfbrepjrserrilioa -- Ontrsion) 8- lE 59, Itc l,swssrcallcgo Incorporeto rcfcrcncc rrd by hcrcincaoh thaallegationc of in le Prragrephsthrrough abovc. I 58, 20 60. DefcndanL virtucof herfiduelary fo rrlrtionship crnploytnart with thr Lpwcs rnd 2 L furficr by virtueof herobligrtionpurusntto thcContldcntidity owodthelowesr Agrcernent, 22 dirclosc theInwesrny andall detcmcnts sheintnndcd futy to ftlly andoompletely to that to 27 tothid panics dlsclosc aboutfieInwcc, 24 61. Dcfcnd&rt brcachcd dutyb disclose thcInwcs thcsutcnrcnts cmduct hor m snd 25 rtlcgodhcrein. ll s26 ti 21 tl -ti 2t a eIGo_r-DoC .l l- I: COMPIANT il fl
  12. 12. Rp r O? 2O O g 4:5 9 P l l p.t4 1 62. At all timcs rclcvantherein,Defendant failed !o disoloseo the Lorves, and 2 tom the [,owes,the fact tlrat shehadviolatedthe ConfiderrtialityAgreenentand suppressed 3 personal discloscd informaoon theLowes thirdparties,The suppression these of to of factswas 4 likely to nrislcad Lowes,anddid in factmislead Lowesin light of Ddendantscontinucd thc the 5 with OrcLorves, employmont 6 63, Defendantknew,or shouldhavcknown,that her faihuesto dislose the 7 informationand suppressions the infonnationallcgedbereinwould inducelhe Lowegto of E ernployDefendaot 9 64. Ilrc Lowes,at the timesthesefailurcsto discloseand zupprcssion facts of l0 occuned,andat the time the Lowestook thc actionsallegedherein,were ignorantof the A. II existenoc the factswhich Defendent of suppressed failed to disclose. If the Loweshadbeen and tl J Irl 12 awareof the existenceof the factsnot discloscd Deli:ndant,the Loweewould not havg asthey by x r3 di4 continuedto have employcdDcfcmdant, allowedDefendant cr€ for rhcir childrpn,allowed to 3=2 -lll < l4 Dcfcndantacoess their homesor allowedDcfcndurt aocess their confidential infonnation, to to MX 15 65. As aproxim& resultofDsfcndantsnegligentfailure to disclosefastsc alleged a, Ft Er 16 henein, Iowes continuodto ernployDefendalrt, the continued allow Defcndantto carefor their to 2E^ 1 7 gY children,continucdto allow Defendant aocess their homesandconrinuedto allow Defendant to H6 1 8 acccss their confide,ntiallnformationby rcasonof wtridt Defendanthasbecnwrjustly enrichcd, to A l9 66. As a proximateresultof saidnegligeirtfaihnesto disclosc,the l,oweshavebeen 20 andwill be damaged an amountwhich will bc provedat tial. in 21 67. The aforcmerrtioned condustof Defendant was doneby Defendartwith the 22 intentionof causingths Lowes injury andwasdespiceble @nductthat subjccted Iowes to a the 23 cruel andwfust hardshipin couscious disrcgard their rigbrs. B5rremonof suchcouduct, of lhe 24 Lowesarc entitled to recoverexcmplaryandprrritivc damages againstDefcndalrt. i] 25 il q i26 tl n i zt II * 28 958090_t.DOC E COMPT.AINT
  13. 13. Ff r p 07 2O O g 5: OOPM P. l3 I PRAYER RpJLrEr roR 2 Plaintitrs prayfor judgmentagainstDefendant follows: WHEREFORE, as 3 AS TO THE IIIRST CAUSEOF ACTION 4 (Bresch of Written Qontr.scr(Co-$tidentialitLAsTeemeg0l ) l. For genetal damages, anamounttobeprovenr trial; in at 6 2. For costsincurredhaein: 7 AS TO TIIE SECONDCAUSE OFACTION 8 (Pefrmatlon) 9 3. For generaldamages, an amount be pmven at trial; in to t0 4. For punitive damagos an anourtt apprcpriate punishDefendant deter in to and A ll othersfrom engaging insimilar conduct; Fl ilz I 5. For costsincunedhcrein; 51 3 AS TO TrIE, THIRD C&iSE Or ACTr9r-{ ,rl - &Z 14 (Bryachof lhe Duty Of Lovaltv) J8 15 6. For generaldamages, an amormt be pwen at tiah in to a> HE t6 7. For pruritivedamages an amourt appropriate punishDefendant deter in to and 3 E g 17 o(hersfmm engagingin sinilarconducq 9ro 518 E. For oosts incunedherein; l9 AS TO TnEFOTJRTII9aUSE OFACTTON 20 (Brcachof FiduciarvJ.-Tties 2l 9- For generaldamagcs, an amorrnt beproven at trial; in to 22 10, For punitive damages an amourt appropriate prurishDefeodautanddeter in to 23 otben from engagingin similar eonduot; 24 11. For cosb incurrpdherein; n2s AS TO TIIE FITTH CAUSE OF ACTION it (In lenllonal InfUctiouof Epotional Distregg) "26 Y27 12, For gcneraldarnages, an aruountto be proveoat trial; in {zr tit CI 9mo9o_l.Doc s -13_ @MPI.AINT
  14. 14. Fl p n A 7 2O O g 5: 0 OP l l P. l4 I 13. For punitive damages an amountappropriaeto punishDefcndantanddeter in n others from engaging similarconduct; in 3 14- For costsjncurrcdhcrein; 4 AS TO THE SDilH CAUSE OJrA-sElON 5 (Neelieetrt lofliction of EmotionalDbtr$r) 6 15. For gencral damages, anmrountto bepmvcnat bial; in 7 16. For punitive &-ages in an amountappropriatetopunishDefendant deter and 8 othersfrom eagagingin similar conducq 9 17. Por costsincurrej heoein; 10 AS TO TIIE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION A" 1l flntentionsl Misrenreeenlrtion-- Omlsslon) -l -) rl 12 18. For general danages, an amount be provenat fial; in to (t E o l3 19. For pwritivc daurages an amountappropriate punishDefendantanddaer in to *F l 33, 7 4 othersfrom cngagingin similar conduct; fR v5 l5 20. Forcostsinsunedhe.tein; => 9 l tu r6 AS TO TrrE EIGHTTI CAUSE OF.ACIION 2E Eio t7 (NcsliqentMisrepresenjation Opisg.io4) -qlre-&A 18 21. For ge,neral darnages, an arnount bcproven at trial; in to l9 22. For punitivc darnages an amountappropriate punish Defendantanddeter in to 20 othercfiorn engagingin similarconduct; 2t 23. For costsing.uredherEin; 22 ll 23 il 24 il ij25 /l tl 2 6 ll 427 /l { 2s. ei 9tBo9Q_t.DOC I COMPI"AINT
  15. 15. Hpn ( ] 7 2O O 8 5:OOP | .1 P. l5 I AS TO ALL CAUSESOF,A.CTrON 2 For any all sushfurthsr elief astheCourtmey deemjust andproper. 5 DATED:April7,2008 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 F. 1l J ,l trt l2 (, / o l3-E l7)ox- (, l4<xv5 l5a>fle t63FH to V t714gA l8 l9 20 2l ?2 23 24 25 !-.r g il T 26 ii L! 2t / ! 28 .fr tlt I5E090_t.DOC COMPI.AINT