Still some legal stuff - but read all the major agencies that are part of this - if they go down, so does Tran Continental talents!!! They'll have nobody to claim they work with - this could crush all the big new york agencies (except the newer ones who started in the last 10-15 years)
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Amanda Masters is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Ms. Masters had modeling contracts with Defendants, Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., Next Management Corp., Zoli Management Inc., and Click Model Management, Inc. During the Class Period.
2. Plaintiff Simon Beardmore is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Beardmore had modeling contracts with Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. And Boss Models, Inc. During the class period.
3. Plaintiff Szuzanna Boros is a resident of New York City. Ms. Boros had a modeling contract with Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. During the Class Period.
4. Plaintiff Thomas Bradley is a resident of Los Angeles County, California. Mr. Bradley had modeling contracts with Ford Models Inc., Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. And Click Model Management Inc. During the class period.
5. Plaintiff Barbara A. Cheeseborough is a resident of Arcadia, California. Ms. Cheeseborough had modeling contracts with Defendants Ford Models, Inc. And Zoli Management, Inc. During the Class Period.
6. Plaintiff Jennifer Curran is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Ms. Curran had a modeling contract with Elite Model Management, Inc., during the Class Period.
7. Plaintiff Carolyn Fears is a resident of Orange County, California. Ms. Fears had a modeling contract with Defendant Ford Models, Inc. During the Class Period.
8. Plaintiff Valarie Gardano is a resident of New York, New York. Ms. Gardano had modeling contracts with Elite Model Management Inc. And IMG Models, Inc. During the class period.
9. Plaintiff Donna Gibbs is a resident of Norristown, PA. Ms. Gibbs had a modeling contract with Defendant Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. During the Class Period.
10. Plaintiff Bill Goins is a resident of New York. Mr. Goins had a modeling contract with Defendant Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. During the Class Period.
11. Plaintiff Carla Gross, doing business as Sebastian Cardon, is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Ms. Gross had modeling contracts with Defendant Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., Company Model Management, and Elite Model Management, Inc. During the Class Period.
12. Plaintiff Justin Klentner is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Klentner had modeling contracts with Defendants Boss Models, Inc., Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., Zoli Management Inc., and Ford Models, Inc. During the Class Period.
13. Plaintiff Eleanora Miller (a/k/a Elle Miller) is a resident of Austin, Texas. Ms. Miller had modeling contracts with Elite Model Management Inc., IMG Models, Inc., Ford Models, Inc and Next Model Management during the class period.
14. Plaintiff Virginia Nelson is a resident of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Ms. Nelson had modeling contracts with Zoli Management, Inc., Next Management Company, Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. And Images Management during the Class Period.
15. Plaintiff Anne Rogan d/b/a Anne Hopson is a resident of Swarthmore, PA. Ms. Rogan had a modeling contract with Defendant Ford Models, Inc. During the Class Period.
16. Plaintiff Alicia Pine is a resident of Los Angeles California. Ms. Pine had modeling contracts with Ford Models, Inc., Elite Model Management Inc. And Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. During the class period.
17. Plaintiff Lorelei Shellist is a resident of San Diego, California. Ms. Shellist had modeling contracts with Defendants Elite Model Management, Inc. And Ford Models, Inc. During the Class Period.
18. Plaintiff Angela Shelton is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Ms. Shelton had modeling contracts with IMG Models, Elite Model Management, Inc., DNA Model Management and Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. During the Class Period.
19. Plaintiff Laura Shoemaker is a resident of Woodstock, New York. Ms. Shoemaker had modeling contracts with Ford Models, Inc., Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. And Images Management during the Class Period.
20. Plaintiff Sharon Simon is a resident of St. Petersburg Florida. Ms. Simon had a modeling contract with Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. During the class period.
21. Plaintiff Todd Snyder is a resident of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Snyder had a modeling contract with Ford Models, Inc. During the Class Period.
22. Plaintiff Hillary Sway is a resident of Fairfax. Virginia. Ms. Sway had a modeling contract with Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc. During the class period.
23. Plaintiff Monica Walker is a resident of Philadelphia, PA. Ms. Walker had modeling contracts with Defendant Click Model Management, Inc. During the class period.
24. Defendant Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., ("Wilhelmina"), is a New York corporation with its principal place of business located at 300 Park Avenue South, New York, New York, 10010.
25. Defendant Ford Models, Inc. ("Ford") is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 142 Greene Street, New York, New York, 10012.
26. Defendant Gerard W. Ford, a/k/a Jerry Ford, residence currently unknown, is Co-Chairman of the Board of Ford Models, Inc., located at 142 Greene Street, New York, New York, 10012.
27. Defendant Elite Model Management, Inc. ("Elite") is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 111 East 22nd Street, 2nd Floor, New York, New York, 10010.
28. Defendant Click Model Management, Inc. ("Click") is reported to be a corporation maintaining its principal place of business at 129 West 27th Street, New York, New York 10001.
29. Defendant Next Management Corp. ("Next") is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 23 Watts Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York, 10013.
30. Defendant The MFME Model Management Company Ltd.
("Company"), also known as Company Model Management, has its principal place of business located at 270 Lafayette Street, #1400, New York, NY 10012.
31. Defendant Boss Models, Inc. ("Boss") is reported to be a corporation established under and pursuant to the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 1 Gansevoort Street, New York, New York 10014.
32. Defendant Zoli Management, Inc. ("Zoli") is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 3 West 18th Street, New York, New York 10011.
33. Defendant Q Model Management ("Q") has its principal place of business located at 180 Varick Street, New York, New York 10014.
34. Defendant DNA Model Management, LLC ("DNA") is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 520 Broadway, New York, New York 10012.
35. Defendant Images Management ("Images") has its principal place of business located at 30 East 20th Street, 6th Floor, New York, New York 10003.
36. Defendant IMG Models, Inc. ("IMG") is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at 304 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10010.
37. Defendant Model Management Corporation f/k/a / International Model Managers Association, Inc. ("IMMA") is a New York corporation.
JURISDICITION AND VENUE
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15 (a), 28 U.S.C. 1337, as well as principles of supplemental jurisdiction.
2. All of the Defendants to this civil action reside in New York and regularly conduct business in this District.
3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Sections 4 and 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15 and 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) and (c).
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all current and former models who have or had oral or written contracts with any of the Defendants during the Class Period. Plaintiffs do not presently know the exact time when the unlawful conspiracy began, but are informed and believe based, in part, on the sworn statements of Defendant Elite's own counsel, submitted as part of a lawsuit against Ford and Wilhelmina that the unlawful conspiracy began between Defendants Ford and Wilhelmina no later than 1977, and later grew to include each of the other Defendants (including Elite itself, which decided to drop its lawsuit and join the conspiracy).
2. Plaintiffs do not know the exact size of the Class because such information is in the exclusive control of Defendants. Nonetheless, there are thousands of Class members geographically dispersed throughout the United States. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class members, whether required or permitted, is impracticable.
3. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class because Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, were models who entered into contracts, both written and oral, with various Defendants at various times during the Class Period, and have each been damaged by Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to fix prices in violation of federal antitrust law. Similarly, Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, have been damaged by Defendants' unlawful fees and charges, in violation of New York state law, during the class period.
4. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class because Plaintiffs' interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in the prosecution of antitrust and class action litigations.
5. Questions of law and fact that are common to the members of the Class predominate over questions that affect only individual members. Among the questions of law and fact that are common to the class are:
1. Whether Defendants are engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices relating to fees charged to models and persons who employ models, and whether Defendants conspired to standardize other terms and conditions of the employment of professional models;
1. Whether Defendants are employment agencies, as that term is defined under the New York General Business Law ("GBL");
1. Whether Defendants have violated GBL 172 by operating as employment agencies without being licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs;
1. Whether Defendants have charged excessive fees, in violation of GBL 185;
1. Whether Defendants have violated GBL 187 (8) by operating other businesses from the same locations as their employment agency businesses;
1. Whether Defendants have violated GBL 187 (10) by requiring Plaintiffs to contribute to the cost of advertising materials intended to assist Defendants in procuring employment for Plaintiffs; and
1. Whether Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by failing to deal openly, honestly, and in good faith with Plaintiffs, including by (i) misrepresenting their services as management services, rather than employment services, (ii) acting in concert to evade state law regulating employment agencies, (iii) inducing Plaintiffs to purchase other services offered by Defendants, in violation of state law, and (iv) falsely representing to Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs were Defendants' clients, when in fact Defendants considered Plaintiffs' employers to be Defendants' real "clients."
1. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this case that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.
2. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, thereby making final relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. As discussed in more detail below, Defendants have collectively acted to fix prices, create standardized contracts and preclude new modeling agencies from entering the market. Defendants continue to coordinate their efforts by communicating through formal trade associations and through other less formal means. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
Merry
clifton, New Jersey
U.S.A.
0 comments