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"

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*
n.com
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. 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 public's 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 u'orked. 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. 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, othenn'ise,
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. 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 public's 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 'Lowe's' andthe '[.owE'sParties',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/E's'andthe
;ra 'Lowe'sParti€s'."
JO
FO l5
e Et
>
Ft l6 IIpF'ENDAI{T'S 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. 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 person'sre,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. SinceDefendarrt's 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 Deftndant's 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 OX'ACTION
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,ndant's
breaches thc Confidentiality
of
26
g Agreement wt forth above,
as
? 27
a4
2t
g 9r8090_t.DOC
Lr
COMPLAINT

6. Rp r o7 2O O g . 1: 5 ? P l ' 1 p. 6
l 22, As a directandforeseeable
resultof Defondant's
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 informed'andbelievg 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 OT'ACTION
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
a't
COMPLAINT

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 Dcfcndant's
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,
fiaud
2=
i.'o
Fg t7 andmalice,and on this basis,the Lowesrcquestthatpunitivedamagcs assessed
bc against
sl e
a 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. 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 Lorve's cclebrity$anrs.
24 4l ' Defendastalsokncn'that 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 SherylLowe'sJewish
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. 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
Defendant'scondrrct
4 of person
zuchthat no reasonable
bounds decenoy to
couldbe expected ondureit,
5 44. Defbndalt's 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€d'ilith 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. 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 Defeudant's 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 LowBs'damage 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 Dcfcndant's
the the continucd
20 with ths Lowes.
employment
2l 55. Defendant'sfailuresro 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. 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 Defcndant's
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: COMPIA'NT
il
fl

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 Ddendant'scontinucd
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 zupp'rcssion 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& resultofDsfcndant'snegligentfailure 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. 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 OF'ACTION
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. 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
-)
r'l 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. 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 l
7)o
x- (, l4
<x
v5 l5
a>
fle t6
3F
H to
V t7
14
g
A l8
l9
20
2l
?2
23
24
25
!-.r
g
il
T
26
ii
L!
2t
/
!
28
.fr
tlt I5E090_t.DOC
COMPI.AINT