You are on page 1of 19

SUMMONS

(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: EVAN SPIEGEL, an individual; ROBERT C.
(AVISO ALDEMANDADO): MURPHY, an individual; SNAPCHAT, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1through 50 inclusive,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: ELIZABETH TURNER, an
(LOESTA DEMANDANDO ELDEMANDANTE): individual; and SARAH
TURNER, an individual,
SUM-100
FOR COURT USE ONLY
(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
f onforwie^ copy
f^lGtNAL FILED .
SEP 23 201't
Sherti R. Carter, Executive OHicer/Clerl^
By Wlyrna Beltran, Deputy
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court formthat you can use for your response. Youcan find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center {www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. Ifyou cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. Ifyou do not fileyour response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. Ifyou do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. Ifyou cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services froma nonprofit legal services program. Youcan locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site iwww.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts OnlineSelf-Help Center
{www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or bycontacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lienfor waivedfees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more ina civil case. The court's lienmust be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
(AVISO! Lohan demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dfas, la cortepuede decidiren su contra sin escucharsu version. Lea la informacion a
continuacidn
Tiene 30 DlAS DE CALENDARIO despu6s de que le entreguen esta citacidn y papeies iegaies para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
code y hacerque se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada teiefdnica no io protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
en fonvato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulan'o que usted pueda usarpara su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas Informacidn en el Centra de Ayuda de las Cortes de Califomia fwww.sucorte.ca.gov). en la
bibliotecade leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede m^s cerca. SI no puede pagar la cuota de presentacidn, pida al secretario de la corte
que le d6 un formulan'o de exencion de pago de cuotas. SI no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
podr^ quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin m^s advertencia.
Hay otros requisites legates. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmedlatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servlcio de
remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legates gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucroen el sitio web de Califomia Legal Services,
fwww.lawhelpcalifomia.orgj, en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Califomia, fwww.sucorte.ca.gov) o poni6ndose en contacto con la corte o el
coleglode abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los cosfos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperacidn de $10,000 6 mSs de valorreclbida mediante un acuerdoo una concesidn de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tieneque
pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
Tfie name and address of the court Is: case number:
(El nombre y direccion de la corte es): (NOmem uei caso):
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiffwithout an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la dlreccidn y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Eric S. Engel (SNB 105656) / H. Kim Sim(SB# 252321) 310-998-9100 310-998-9109
Conkle, Kremer & Engel, PLC
3130Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Santa Monica, CA 90403
DATE: SHERRI R. CARTER
(Fecha)
BC5S8442
Clerk, by
(Secretario)
myrn.a beltran
Deputy
(Adjunto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (formPOS-OfO).)
(Para prueba de enirega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED; You are served
SEAL
1.
2.
3.
as an individual defendant.
as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
on behalf of (specify):
under: | i COP 416.10 (corporation)
I I COP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
I I COP 416.40 (association or partnership)
I I other (specify):
4. I " I by personal delivery on (date):
I I COP 416.60 (minor)
I I COP 416.70 (conservatee)
I I COP 416.90 (authorized person)
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of Califomia
SUM-100 [Rev. July 1.2009)
SUMMONS
Solut^ns'
Page 1 of 1
Code of Civil Procedure 412.20, 465
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eric S. E^el (SB# 105656)
e. en^el(mconklelaw. com
H. KimSm(SB# 252321)
k.sim@.conklelaw. com
CONI^, KREMER &ENGEL
Professional Law Corporation
3130 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Santa Monica, California 90403-2351
Phone: (310) 998-9100 Fax: (310) 998-9109
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elizabeth Turner
and Sarah Turner
CONFORMED COPY
ORIGINAL FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
SEP 23 2m
Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk
ByMyma Beltran, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
ELIZABETH TURNER, an individual;
and SARAH TURNER, an individual.
Plaintiffs,
V.
EVAN SPIEGEL, an individual;
ROBERT C. MURPHY, an individual;
SNAPCHAT, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive.
Defendants.
3884.002\9994
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR:
1. VIOLATION OF STATUTORY
RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY
2. VIOLATION OF COMMON
LAW RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY
Complaint Filed: September 23,2014
Trial Date: None Set
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-1-
COMPLAINT
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
1. This action begins with Evan Spiegel and Robert C. Murphy, the founders
and principals of Snapchat, Inc., misleading two young sisters, Elizabeth and Sarah
Turner, into allowing their photographs to be taken as a class project. Spiegel and
Murphy then used the sisters photographs for promotion of the Picaboo application
for iPhone, under Model Releases exclusively for the purpose of promoting the
Picaboo application for iPhone. The Picaboo App for iPhone was later renamed the
Snapchat App for iPhone.
2. The principals of Snapchat, Inc. misused the sisters photographs for profit
and to enhance the Defendants goodwill and enterprise value. The Defendants
misuse of the sisters photographs included extensive promotion of the different and
much more frequently used Snapchat App for Android, without even asking for
Elizabeth and Sarahs consent. The principals of Snapchat, Inc. used Elizabeth and
Sarahs photographs so prominently and extensively that they have effectively
become the faces of the Snapchat applications. As a result of the prominent and
extensive promotion of their personae by Snapchat, Inc. and its principals, Elizabeth
and Sarah have suffered having their images tainted by the somewhat tawdry
reputation of Snapchat applications, widely reputed to be used as sexting apps. For
example, Google Images searches of the offensive slur snapchat sluts results in the
sisters photographs, promulgated by Snapchat, Inc. and its founders, appearing first
at the top of the search results.
3. Owing in part to promotion through photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah,
the Defendants Snapchat applications have become extraordinarily successful. The
founders of Snapchat, Inc. famously refused a cash acquisition offer from Facebook
for $3 billion, and the company is currently valued at about $10 billion. The sisters
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-2-
COMPLAINT
were never paid anything by Snapchat, Inc. or its founders and principals. Elizabeth
and Sarah Turner have suffered substantial injuries and damages as a result of the
violations of their rights of publicity under California law.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Elizabeth Turner (Elizabeth) is an individual residing in
Georgia.
5. Plaintiff Sarah Turner (Sarah) is an individual residing in Georgia.
6. Elizabeth and Sarah are sisters. In July 2011, Elizabeth was 18 and Sarah
was 19 years old, and both were living in Los Angeles County, California.
7. Defendant Evan Spiegel (Spiegel) is an individual residing in Los
Angeles County, California.
8. Defendant Robert C. Murphy (Murphy) is an individual residing in Los
Angeles County, California.
9. Defendant Snapchat, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 64 Market Street, Venice, California, in Los Angeles County.
On information and belief, Defendant Snapchat, Inc. is the successor entity to Toyopa
Group, LLC and Future Freshman, LLC, both California Limited Liability
Companies.
10. On information and belief, Spiegel and Murphy were both owners and
managers of Future Freshman, LLC and Toyopa Group, LLC, and since the formation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-3-
COMPLAINT
of Snapchat, Inc. have been its principal officers. On information and belief, Spiegel
and Murphy direct and control Snapchat, Inc.s activities from within Los Angeles
County, California.
11. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, or any
of them, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. The Doe
defendants include persons and entities assisting or acting in concert with the named
defendants in connection with the actions complained of herein, and include persons
and entities that are responsible in some manner for the acts, occurrences and liability
alleged herein. All defendants herein are referred to collectively as Defendants.
12. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the wrongful conduct set
forth herein because they have aided and abetted, or conspired to commit, such
wrongful conduct, and have served as the agents for one another in such wrongful
conduct.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution and California Code of Civil
Procedure 410.50.
14. Venue is proper in Los Angeles County pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure 393 & 395(a) because it is where the cause of action arose and
injury occurred, and where one or more of the Defendants either reside or maintain
their principal place of business, where Defendants received substantial benefits as a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-4-
COMPLAINT
result of the conduct alleged, and where the conduct and activities giving rise to the
claims in this action occurred.
DEFENDANTS MISLED ELIZABETH AND SARAH INTO MODELING TO
PROMOTE THEIR SNAPCHAT APP FOR IPHONE
15. In June 2011, Elizabeth was a student at Duke University who engaged in
some professional modeling. Spiegel was a student at Stanford University, and
Murphy was a recent graduate of Stanford University. Spiegel and Murphy were
working together on a disappearing photograph software application (App) for
iPhone called Picaboo, as a follow-up to a prior venture in which they had engaged
under a business entity called Future Freshman, LLC.
16. On or about July 15, 2011, Spiegel contacted Elizabeth through a mutual
acquaintance, and asked her to model for photographs for free for a class project.
Spiegel suggested Elizabeth come to his house in Pacific Palisades to model.
Elizabeth responded that she would only come to his house if her sister Sarah
accompanied her.
17. On July 18, 2011, Elizabeth and Sarah met Spiegel and Murphy. Spiegel
took photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah at the Santa Monica Pier, Santa Monica
beach, and at the Toyopa Drive, Pacific Palisades home that served as the principal
place of business for the predecessors to Snapchat, Inc., Future Freshman, LLC and
Toyopa Group, LLC. Murphy assisted Spiegel in taking the photographs.
18. Elizabeth and Sarah were paid nothing for their modeling for Spiegel and
Murphys class project. Elizabeth and Sarah provided their own wardrobe, and did
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-5-
COMPLAINT
their own makeup and hairstyling. Spiegel and Murphy did not request Elizabeth and
Sarah to sign any Model Release on July 18, 2011.
19. Three days later, on July 21, 2011, Spiegel emailed Elizabeth and attached
a Model Release, and requested that Elizabeth sign a Model Release and have Sarah
sign one as well. Elizabeth and Sarah were then living in Los Angeles County,
California. Elizabeth and Sarah signed the Model Releases in Los Angeles County on
July 25, 2011, and emailed the Model Releases back to Spiegel as requested. At the
time, Spiegel was living in Los Angeles County, California. A true copy of
Elizabeths signed Model Release is attached as Exhibit 1, and a true copy of Sarahs
signed Model Release is attached as Exhibit 2. Elizabeth and Sarah were paid nothing
for signing the Model Releases.
20. The Model Releases provide in pertinent part as follows:
I, the undersigned, do hereby consent and agree that Future
Freshman LLC, its employees, and agents have the right to
take photographs, videotape, or digital recordings of me on
July 18, 2011 and to use these in any and all media, now or
hereafter known, and exclusively for the purpose of
promoting the Picaboo application for iPhone.
21. The Model Releases were thus expressly limited to use of the photographs
taken of Elizabeth and Sarah on July 18, 2011 exclusively for the purpose of
promoting the Picaboo application for iPhone.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-6-
COMPLAINT
22. After signing and returning the Model Releases to Spiegel, Elizabeth and
Sarah had no further contact with Spiegel or Murphy about use of the photographs
taken on July 18, 2011.
DEFENDANTS EXTENSIVELY PROMOTED THE SNAPCHAT APP FOR
IPHONE BY USING THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ELIZABETH AND SARAH
23. In about July 2011, Spiegel and Murphy began promoting the Picaboo
application for iPhone (Picaboo App for iPhone), using the photographs taken of
Elizabeth and Sarah. Spiegel particularly used the attractiveness of Elizabeth to
generate early interest in the Picaboo App for iPhone. For example, on information
and belief, Spiegel wrote an online post directed to college fraternity members to
promote the Picaboo App for iPhone. Under the heading Ridiculous iPhone App,
Spiegel specifically pointed these young male potential users of the Picaboo App for
iPhone to the iTunes download site that featured in iTunes screenshots photographs
of Elizabeth, the very good-looking girl from Duke:
I thought you might want to check out the iPhone app I built
this summer.
Its called Picaboo and its the fastest way to share photos
that disappear. You take a picture, set the timer up to ten
seconds, and send to a friend. When they receive your
Picaboo they have until the timer is up to view it then it
disappears forever. Fun shit.
The girl who modeled in our iTunes screenshots is from
Duke and very good looking: itunes/apps/picaboo
If you want any more info hit me up. Were trying to get
the word out.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-7-
COMPLAINT
Also, proof [a photograph of Elizabeth] attached.
24. In or about September 2011, Defendants changed the name of the
Picaboo App for iPhone to the Snapchat App for iPhone. On information and
belief, this name change involved no substantive change in the software application
other than its name, and it remained exclusively an application for iPhone.
25. Defendants launched the Snapchat App for iPhone with a website at the
domain name snapchat.me, which featured prominently a carousel of photographs
of Elizabeth and Sarah and links to the iTunes download site for the Snapchat App for
iPhone, which also prominently featured photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah. The
photographs used by Defendants on the snapchat.me website included one photograph
cropped and edited by Defendants to falsely suggest to the casual observer that
Elizabeth was pulling off Sarahs bathing suit top and that they were nude on the
beach. The following are examples of the snapchat.me website as it existed in
September 2011:


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-8-
COMPLAINT
26. Substantially the same website design and photographs were used by
Defendants on a subsequent snapchat.com website for promotion of the Snapchat App
for iPhone.
27. The same series of photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah have been
prominently used by Defendants for advertising and promotion of the Snapchat App
for iPhone consistently from approximately August 2011 through the present.
Through the date of this Complaint, the photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah have
continuously appeared on the iTunes Store page for downloads of the Snapchat App
for iPhone, which is the standard default location for authorized downloads of
applications for iPhones.
28. As the Snapchat App for iPhone grew in popularity, it acquired a
somewhat tawdry reputation as a sexting app, used by individuals to send sexually
graphic photographs, text and images that were intended to disappear shortly after
receipt. The photographs and personae of Elizabeth and Sarah used by Defendants to
promote the Snapchat App for iPhone were tainted with applications tawdry
reputation, and photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah began appearing prominently in
Google searches for offensive phrases such as snapchat sluts.
WITHOUT EVEN ASKING FOR CONSENT, DEFENDANTS USED
PHOTOGRAPHS OF ELIZABETH AND SARAH EXTENSIVELY TO
PROMOTE THE MUCH MORE POPULAR SNAPCHAT APP FOR
ANDROID
29. On October 29, 2012, Defendants launched the Snapchat App for Android,
a completely different technological platform than the iPhone. Defendants promoted
the Snapchat App for Android by touting it as different from the Snapchat App for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-9-
COMPLAINT
iPhone, such as by announcing: This isnt just a copy of our iPhone app. We
wanted to create a true Android app.
30. Immediately following the October 29, 2012 launch of the Snapchat App
for Android, Defendants began promoting the Snapchat App for Android through use
of the same series of photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah that had been taken on July
18, 2011. The same series of photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah have been
prominently used by Defendants for advertising and promotion of the Snapchat App
for Android consistently from approximately November 2012 through the present.
Through the date of this Complaint, the photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah have
continuously appeared on the Google Play Store page for downloads of the Snapchat
App for Android, which is the default standard location for authorized downloads of
applications for Android devices.
31. The photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah have so extensively and
consistently been used by Defendants that they have effectively been used first as the
faces of the Snapchat App for iTunes, and subsequently as the faces of the
Snapchat App for Android.
32. Defendants launch of the Snapchat App for Android was a very large step
into a new operating system platform that promised enormous profit growth
opportunities for Defendants. On information and belief, Defendants also permitted
other Snapchat applications to be distributed and promoted on different technology
platforms, sometimes also promoted with photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah. On
information and belief, the number of Android smartphones in use far surpasses the
number of iPhones in use, such that approximately 80% of the smartphone market
today is held by Android smartphones. Accordingly, on information and belief, the
number of downloads and uses of the Snapchat App for Android far surpasses the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-10-
COMPLAINT
number of downloads and uses of the Snapchat App for iPhone. Therefore, the
Defendants uses of the photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah for the promotion of the
Snapchat App for Android are far more numerous and extensive than their uses of
photographs of Elizabeth and Sarah for the Snapchat App for iPhone.
33. With the huge increase in uses of the Snapchat App for Android, the
tawdry reputation of the Snapchat applications has not abated, and the association of
Elizabeth and Sarahs personae with that tawdry reputation has grown stronger with
the Defendants use of their photographs to promote the Snapchat App for Android.
For example, as of the date of this Complaint, a search of Google Images for the
offensive slurs snapchat sluts or snapchat whores places the photographs of
Elizabeth and Sarah, as used in Snapchat applications, in the number one search result
position at the top left of the search results, as shown here:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-11-
COMPLAINT
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VIOLATION OF STATUTORY RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY
BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
34. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint as if set forth
in full herein.
35. Defendants intentionally and deliberately used, without authorization or
consent, the photographs, images and likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah for economic
gain in the promotion and distribution of the Snapchat App for Android and, on
information and belief, other technology platforms apart from the Snapchat App for
iPhone. Elizabeth and Sarah are readily identifiable in the photographs, images and
likenesses used by Defendants.
36. Defendants extensive use without consent of the photographs, images and
likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah caused them substantial injury and damage,
including emotional distress, embarrassment, and loss of pecuniary value of the use of
their photographs, images and likenesses. As a result of Defendants extensive use
without consent of the photographs, images and likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah,
Defendants gained profits, enhanced goodwill and enhanced economic value, a
portion of which is attributable to Defendants use of the photographs, images and
likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah.
37. Defendants wrongful conduct toward Elizabeth and Sarah as alleged
herein was malicious and oppressive. Defendant Snapchat, Inc.s wrongful conduct
was through the intentional acts and conduct of its controlling principal officers,
Spiegel and Murphy. As a result, Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of punitive
damages.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3884.002\9994
-12-
COMPLAINT
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VIOLATION OF COMMON LAW RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY
BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
38. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint as if set forth
in full herein.
39. Defendants used, without authorization or consent, the photographs,
images and likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah for economic gain in the promotion and
distribution of the Snapchat App for Android and, on information and belief, other
technology platforms apart from the Snapchat App for iPhone. Elizabeth and Sarah
are readily identifiable in the photographs, images and likenesses used by Defendants.
40. Defendants extensive use without consent of the photographs, images and
likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah caused them substantial injury and damage,
including emotional distress, embarrassment, and loss of pecuniary value of the use of
their photographs, images and likenesses. As a result of Defendants extensive use
without consent of the photographs, images and likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah,
Defendants gained profits, enhanced goodwill and enhanced economic value, a
portion of which is attributable to Defendants use of the photographs, images and
likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah.
41. Defendants wrongful conduct toward Elizabeth and Sarah as alleged
herein was malicious and oppressive. Defendant Snapchat, Inc.s wrongful conduct
was through the intentional acts and conduct of its controlling principal officers,
Spiegel and Murphy. As a result, Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of punitive
damages.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Turner and Sarah Turner pray for judgment
against Defendants, and each of them, as follows;
1. For damages in an amount to be proved at trial, including at least:
a. Loss ofpecuniary value ofthe use oftheir photographs, images and
likenesses;
b. Compensation for emotional distress and embarrassment;
c. Portions of Defendants' profits, enhanced goodwill and enhanced
economic value attributable to Defendants' use of the photographs, images and
likenesses of Elizabeth and Sarah;
2. Punitive damages;
3. Attorney fees for violation of the statutory right of publicity;
4. Costs of suit; and
5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: September 22, 2014
3884.002\9994
Eric S. Engel
H. Kim Sim, members of
CONKLE, KREMER & ENGEL
Professional Law Corporatim
Attorneys for
Sarah Turner
COMPLAINT
tiffs Elizabeth Turner and





































Exhibit 1





































Exhibit 2

You might also like