EFTA00730495.pdf

Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 1 of 65 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JULIE AMANDA TILTON CASE NO.: 8:05-cv-692-T-30TGW Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT VS. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.; PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.; PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PLAYBOY.COM, INC.; PLAYBOY TV INTERNATIONAL, LLC; LINCOLNWOOD MOTION PICTURES, LLC; NEW CITY RELEASING, INC.; IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; MODERN ENTERTAINMENT LTD.; TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORP.; BEST BUY COMPANY, INC.; DESLIN HOTELS, INC.; IRENE L DEVLIN; DENNIS B. DEVLIN; PAUL A. PREWITT; FLORIDA FILM & PHOTO, INC.; GOLDRUSH DISC JOCKEYS, INC.; DAVID L. BARTON; BV & BK PRODUCTIONS, LLLP; CHAD W. CIANI; MICHAEL WEITZ; JASON MASKELL; iN-DEMAND L.L.C.; TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT - ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP; and COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Julie Amanda Tilton (the - Plaintiff), hereby sues the defendants identified herein and allege as follows: 30983.33002.249457 EFTA00730495  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/262006 Page 2 of 65 The Parities 1. Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida. 2. Defendant Deslin Hotels, Inc. ("Deslin") is a Florida corporation and owns and operates a 250-room motel and conference center known as the Desert Inn Resort Motel a/k/a the Desert Inn Resort & Suites Convention Complex (the "Desert Inn") in Daytona Beach, Florida. 3. Defendants Irene L. Devlin and Dennis B. Devlin (the "Devlins") are citizens of Florida. The Devlins own Deslin and manage the day-to-day operations of the Desert Inn. 4. Defendant Goldrush Disc Jockeys, Inc. ("Goldrush") is a Florida corporation and operates as an entertainment company and provides various entertainment-related services, such as deejays, photography, videography, and limousine services. 5. Defendant David L. Barton a/k/a DJ Dave ("Barton") is a citizen of Florida. At all material times, Barton was an employee, officer and authorized agent of Goldrush. 6. Defendant Florida Film & Photo, Inc. ("FFPI") is a dissolved Florida corporation. Before its dissolution, FFPI offered and sold various photography and video-related services. Florida Film & Photo continues to operate as an unincorporated business entity and commercial alter-ego of defendant Paul A. Prewitt. 7. Defendant Paul A. Prewitt ("Prewitt") is a citizen of Florida. At all relevant times, Prewitt was the owner, employee or agent of FFPI. 8. Defendant BV & BK Productions, LLLP f/k/a BV & BK Productions, LLP ("By & BK") is a Florida limited partnership. BV & BK owns and operates several voyeuristic and sexually-explicit websites, including www.bikinivoyeur.com www.bv4free.com www.wett- shirt.tv and www.aysimperium.com, all of which displayed sexually-explicit images and video of the Plaintiff. 9. Defendant Chad W. Ciani a/k/a Bikinivoyeurman ("Ciani") is a citizen of Florida. 2 EFTA00730496  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 3 of 65 10. Defendant Michael Weitz ("Weitz") is a citizen of Florida. II. Defendant Jason Maskell a/k/a "Backov" ("Maskell") is Canadian national conducting business in Florida. 12. Defendant Lincolnwood Motion Pictures, L.L.C. ("Lincolnwood") is a California limited liability company conducting business in Florida. Lincolnwood is a copyright holder and producer of video productions, including Playboy Exposed: All American Girls and Playboy Exposed: Spring Break — Greatest Moments. 13. Defendant New City Releasing, Inc. ("New City") is a California corporation conducting business in Florida. New City is an entertainment company that specializes in the production and distribution of motion pictures, direct-to-video and pay-per-view programming content and is a copyright holder and producer of video productions, including Playboy Exposed: Spring Break — Best Of and Girls Gone Crazy: Spring Break. 14. Defendant Playboy Enterprises, Inc. ("PEI") is a Delaware corporation conducting business in Florida. PEI is the publisher of Playboy magazine and sells, manufactures and distributes various adult-oriented products. PEI owns, controls and operates a series of adult-oriented websites on the Internet. 15. Defendant Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. ("PEII") is a Delaware corporation conducting business in Florida. PEI is the owner and licensor of certain trademarks, including the Playboy name and famous Playboy "rabbit-head" design. PEII is responsible for "branding" of Playboy products worldwide and branding of Playboy TV programming content to international satellite and cable TV systems and worldwide adult home video markets. 16. Defendant Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. ("PEGI") is a Delaware corporation conducting business in Florida. PEGI is an adult-oriented video programming content provider and a primary and secondary producer of such programming. PEGI operates 3 EFTA00730497  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 4 of 65 several television networks including, but not limited to, Playboy TV, which is available to more than 50 million households in the United States. 17. Defendant Playboy.Com, Inc. ("Playboy.Com") is a Delaware corporation conducting business in Florida. Playboy.Com is an adult-oriented Internet entertainment company, operating various Internet websites that advertise, offer for sale and promote adult- oriented video programs and products, including those of PEGI and PEI. 18. Defendant Playboy TV International, LLC ("PTVr) is a Delaware limited liability company conducting business in Florida. PTVI develops, sells, licenses and operates adult-oriented, sexually-explicit television networks in Europe, Asia and other places around the world. (Defendants PEI, PEII, PEGI, PTVI and Playboy.Com shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Playboy Defendants"). 20. Defendant Image Entertainment, Inc. ("Image") is a California corporation conducting business in Florida. Image is a domestic distributor of PEGI home video VHS and DVD products to retail outlets in the United States. 21. Defendant Modern Entertainment, Ltd. ("MEL") is a Delaware corporation conducting business in Florida. MEL is a worldwide media and broadcasting conglomerate and distributes adult-oriented films to Russia, Scandinavia and other parts of the world. MEL is also a distributor of PEGI home video products to Hong Kong and other parts of the Far East. 22. Defendant Trans World Entertainment Corporation ("Trans World") is a New York corporation conducting business in Florida and operates over 600 retail stores in the United States under names such as Spec's Music & Movies, Fye and Wherehouse Music. Trans World sells PEGI home video products at retail. 4 EFTA00730498  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 5 of 65 23. Defendant Best Buy Company, Inc. ("Best Buy") is a Minnesota corporation conducting business in Florida. Best Buy operates over 1,600 retail stores throughout the United States and Canada. Best Buy sells PEGI home video products at retail. 24. Defendant iN-DEMAND L.L.C. ("iN-DEMAND") is a New York limited liability company conducting business in Florida. iN-DEMAND operates as a pay-per-view video programming content provider and multi-channel video programming distributor for cable TV and direct-to-home satellite TV operators and systems. iN-DEMAND also specifically operates the sexually-explicit pay-per-view channel known as Hot Choice, yet also re-broadcasts the Playboy TV channel on a pay-per-view basis. 25. Defendant Time Warner Entertainment — Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable ("Time Warner Cable") is a New York general partnership conducting business in Florida. Time Warner Cable operates as a multiple system operator and multi- channel video programming distributor. 26. Defendant Cox Communications ("Cox Cable") is a Delaware corporation conducting business in Florida. Cox Cable operates as an MSO and multi-channel video programming distributor serving over 6.6 million cable TV subscribers in 22 states. (Defendants, iN-DEMAND, Time Warner Cable, and Cox Cable, shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Broadcast Defendants"). Jurisdiction and Venue 27. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §133I and 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) and has supplemental jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). 28. The Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because each Defendant: (a) is a resident or citizen of Florida; or (b) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193, each 5 EFTA00730499  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 6 of 65 Defendant either: (i) operates, conducts, engages in, or carries on business or a business venture in Florida or has an office, registered business entity or agent in Florida; (ii) committed a tortuous act within Florida; or (iii) caused injury to the Plaintiff in Florida arising out of an act or omission committed by the Defendant outside Florida while the Defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities within Florida or products, materials, or things processed, serviced, produced or manufactured by the Defendant were used or consumed in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use. 29. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because a substantial part of the events giving rise the claims stated herein occurred in the Middle District of Florida and within the Tampa Division, as per Local Rule 1.02. General Allegations Common to All Counts 30. At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was a minor under the age of 18. 31. During March of 2001, Deslin conducted various "contests" (the "Contests") at the Desert Inn during the Florida high school "Spring Break" vacation season. 32. The subject Contests included the following: (a) Wet T-shirt Contest; (b) Sexual Positions Contest; (c) Banana Sucking Contest; (d) Muff Eating Contest and (e) Screaming Orgasm Contest. 33. Each of the Contests was designed and intended to include sexually-explicit conduct and to subject participants to demeaning, degrading, inappropriate, exploitive and illegal conduct. 6 EFTA00730500  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/2672006 Page 7 of 65 34. In March of 2001, various individuals attempted to persuade, to induce and to entice the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct or to assist others to engage in sexually-explicit conduct. Such acts by individuals included, but were not limited to, providing the Plaintiff with alcohol and enticing the Plaintiff with the prospect of winning cash and prizes. 35. The Plaintiff was not required to provide and was not asked to provide proof of age before participating in the Contests. 36. As a result of the acts described above, Plaintiff participated in the Wet T-shirt Contest, the Muff Eating Contest, the Banana Sucking Contest, and the Sexual Positions Contest as a minor in March of 2001. 37. During her participation in the Contests, the Plaintiff was persuaded, induced and enticed to perform and did perform various sexually-explicit acts and simulated sexually-explicit acts, including simulating various sexual acts, sexual touching, and exposing her breasts, pubic areas, and buttocks. The Plaintiff was also encouraged to engage in various homo-erotic acts with other minors and was repeatedly molested by other participants on stage. 38. The sexually-explicit videotaped conduct of the Plaintiff and other minors during the Contests includes, but is not limited to, conduct included within the scope of the following: (a) "Sexually-explicit conduct" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §2256(2)(A)(i); (b) "Sexually-explicit conduct" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §2256(2)(A)(iii); (c) "Sexually-explicit conduct" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §2256(2)(A)(v); (d) A "sexual performance by a child" as defined by Fla. Stat. §827.071(1)(b); (e) "Sexual conduct" as defined by Fla. Stat. §827.071(1)(g); (0 A "sexual performance" as defined by Fla. Stat. §827.071(1)(h); (g) "Simulated sexual conduct" as defined by Fla. Stat. §827.071(1)(i). 7 EFTA00730501  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 8 of 65 39. During her participation in the Contests, the Plaintiff was subjected to demeaning, degrading, inappropriate, exploitive and illegal conduct. 40. While the Plaintiff participated in the Contests and engaged in sexually-explicit conduct, the Plaintiff was videotaped by various entities including, but not limited to, Goldrush/Barton (the "Barton Tapes"), FFPI/Prewitt (the "Prewitt Tapes"), and Ciani, Weitz and others (collectively the "Bikinivoyeur Tapes"). 41. Subsequent to the Contests, videotapes and other visual depictions of the Plaintiff engaged in sexually-explicit conduct were sold, distributed or broadcast for pecuniary gain to millions of people world-wide via interstate or foreign commerce or by use of the United States mail. 42. Videotape, DVD and broadcast visual depictions of the Plaintiff and other minors engaged in sexually-explicit conduct that have been sold and disseminated nationally and internationally include, but are not limited to, the following: Girls Gone Crazy: Spring Break; Playboy Exposed: All American Girls (including an edited version); Playboy Exposed: Spring Break —Greatest Moments; Playboy Exposed: Spring Break —Best Of, XTC Girls: Spring Break; (0 XTC Girls: Greatest Moments; and (g) XTC Girls: Best Of 43. Excerpts from videotapes and DVDs in the form of "theatrical trailers" depicting the Plaintiff and other minors engaged in sexually-explicit conduct, such as in Playboy Exposed: All American Girls and Playboy Exposed: Spring Break — Greatest Moments & Best Of have been incorporated into a video advertisement or "theatrical trailer" that is itself child 8 EFTA00730502  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 9 of 65 pornography, that has been incorporated into other adult-oriented erotic videotapes and DVDs including, but not limited to the following titles: (a) Playboy Exposed: Girls' Night Out; (b) Playboy Exposed: Naughty Wives Party; (c) Playboy Exposed: Bachelorette Party; (d) Playboy Exposed: Florida Flash W Splash; (e) Playboy Exposed: Naughty Girls Party in L.A.; (f) Playboy Exposed: Naked on the 4i8 of July; (g) Playboy Exposed: Toy Soldiers; Playboy Exposed: Erotic Scavenger Hunt; (i) Playboy's Juli Ashton & Friends: Anything Goes; (1) Playboy's Roommates. 44. The Barton Tapes, the Prewitt Tapes, the Bikinivoyeur Tapes and all reproductions, modifications, and edited versions thereof referenced in this Amended Complaint, including those set forth in the preceding two paragraphs, depict the Plaintiff and other minors engaged in sexually-explicit conduct. 45. All videotapes and all other visual depictions of the Plaintiff engaged in sexually- explicit conduct constitute "child pornography" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §2256(8)(A) and unlawful visual representations of a minor as defined by Ha. Stat. §827.071(5). 46. The Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time she participated in the Contests and, therefore, she was unaware that she was being videotaped and was otherwise unaware of the nature and extent of her conduct during the Contests or of her resulting illegal sexual exploitation. 9 EFTA00730503  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 10 of 65 47. The Plaintiff was unaware of the nature and extent of her conduct and, therefore, the nature of her damages, until sometime in 2003 when she first learned of and viewed videotapes of the Contests and her conduct pictured thereon. 48. The Plaintiff has retained the following attorneys to represent her in this matter, and she is obligated to pay those attorneys a reasonable fee for their respective services: Litigation Concepts, L.C. (Richard S. Shankman, Esq.), Law Office of Kevin O'Connor, and The Solomon Tropp Law Group, P.A. 49. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have occurred or been waived. Count 1: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a) (Deslin and The Devlins) 50. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations of q1 - 149 above. 51. This a claim brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) against Deslin and the Devlins for violations of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a). 52. At all relevant times, the Devlins were the officers, employees, managers and authorized agents of Deslin. 53. Deslin and the Devlins organized, arranged and conducted the Contests. 54. In anticipation of the Contests, Deslin and the Devlins knowingly made, printed or published notices or posted Internet advertisements seeking the participation of minors in sexually-explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct. Such notices and advertisements included Internet advertisements soliciting high school-aged children to imbibe alcohol and to participate in Deslin's self-described "largest pool deck parties," which were intended and designed to include sexually-explicit conduct by minors and to be videotaped. 55. Deslin and the Devlins knew or had reason to know that such notices and advertisements would be transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Alternatively, such notices and advertisements were transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 10 EFTA00730504  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 11 of 65 56. Deslin and the Devlins, through their employees and agents, conducted the Contests in an enclosed pool deck area at the Desert Inn and charged an admission fee for entry to the pool deck area. At all relevant times, Deslin and the Devlin maintained control over entry into the pool deck area and other areas of the Desert Inn premises. 57. In anticipation of the Contests, Deslin and the Devlins hired Goldrush to act as Master of Ceremonies and deejay for the Contests and to video the Contests. 58. Deslin and the Devlins, through their employees and agents, persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff and other minors to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct. 59. Goldrush, acting within the scope of its authority granted by Deslin and the Devlins, persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff and other minors to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct. 60. Goldrush, acting within the scope of its authority granted by Deslin and the Devlins, created the Barton Tapes by videotaping the Plaintiff's participation in the Contests, including the sexually-explicit conduct of the Plaintiff and other minors. 61. In addition, Deslin and the Devlin knew that many of its customers attending the Contests would create visual depictions of the Contests. Deslin and the Devlins permitted its customers to create visual depictions of the Contests because Deslin and the Devlins knew that such would be beneficial to Deslin, including that the distribution and sharing of images of the Contests would be a form of advertising for Deslin. Visual depictions created during the Contests with the permission or consent of Deslin and the Devlins include the Prewitt Tapes and the Bikinivoyeur Tapes. 11 EFTA00730505  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 12 of 65 62. The above-stated acts constitute violations by Deslin and the Devlin of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a). 63. The above-described acts of Deslin and the Devlin were intentional or were committed with reckless disregard for or conscious indifference of applicable law, the consequences of those acts, the exploitive nature of those acts and the rights and safety of the Plaintiff. 64. At the time the Barton Tapes and other visual depictions of the Contests were created, Deslin and the Devlins knew or had reason to know that such would be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or United States mail. Deslin and the Devlins had this knowledge because they knew or should have known that many of its customers creating visual depictions of the Contests were not residents of Florida and would take the visual depictions with them when they left the state. In addition, Deslin and the Devlins knew or should have known that visual depictions of Contests from the previous years had been posted on the Internet and that visual depictions of the 2001 Contests would be posted on the Internet and would, therefore, be available for viewing and distribution throughout the world. In the alternative, the Barton Tapes and other visual depictions of the Contests have actually been transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed. 65. As a proximate cause of the violations of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a), the Plaintiff has suffered personal injury and other damages. 66. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, her attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and costs incurred as a result of each and every individual violation of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this count for damages (including punitive damages) and all remedies available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), 12 EFTA00730506  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 13 of 65 including prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Count 2: Common Law Negligence (Deslin) 67. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations 0111 -1[49 above. 68. This is a claim for negligence against Deslin. 69. At all relevant times, Deslin had a duty not to provide alcohol to persons under the age of 21. At a minimum, Deslin had a duty not to encourage or to tolerate underage consumption of alcohol on the Desert Inn premises and a duty to take reasonable measures, such as checking drivers' licenses, to confirm the age of those who appeared to be under the age of 21 before providing them with alcohol. 70. At all relevant times, Deslin had a duty not to permit minors to participate in the Contests. 71. To persuade, to induce and to entice the Plaintiff and other minors to participate in the Contests and to encourage them and other minors to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Deslin, through its authorized employees and agents, (a) provided alcohol or caused or directed that alcohol be provided to the Plaintiff and other minors for the purpose of reducing their inhibitions and (b) offered cash, prizes and other incentives. 72. At the time Deslin provided alcohol or caused or directed that alcohol be provided to the Plaintiff, Deslin, through its employees and agents, knew that the Plaintiff was under the age of 21. Alternatively, Deslin knew that the Plaintiff reasonably appeared to be under the age of 21, but Deslin failed to take reasonable steps to confirm the age of the Plaintiff. 73. Deslin breached its duty of care by, among other things, providing alcohol or causing or permitting alcohol to be provided to the Plaintiff and by permitting the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests. 13 EFTA00730507  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 14 of 65 74. As a proximate result of the breach of duty by Deslin, the Plaintiff has sustained damages, including, but not limited to, damages related to the Plaintiffs participation in the Contests and being videotaped while engaged in sexually-explicit conduct and with other minors engaging in sexually-explicit conduct during the Contests. 75. The above-described acts of Deslin were intentional or were committed with reckless disregard for or conscious indifference of applicable law, the consequences of those acts, the exploitive nature of those acts and the rights and safety of the Plaintiff. 76. The following conduct of Deslin was outrageous: (a) Providing alcohol or permitting alcohol to be provided to the Plaintiff to reduce her inhibitions; (b) Persuading, inducing, enticing and instructing the Plaintiff to engage in sexually-explicit conduct herself and with other minors; (c) Subjecting the Plaintiff to demeaning, degrading, inappropriate, exploitive and illegal conduct during the Contests; (d) Videotaping and permitting the videotaping by others of the Plaintiff engaged in sexually-explicit conduct herself and with other minors; (e) Causing the use, dissemination or distribution of the videotapes of the Plaintiff engaged in sexually-explicit conduct herself and with other minors. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this count for damages (including punitive damages), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Count 3: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Deslin) 77. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations of q1 -149 above. 78. This is a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Deslin. 14 EFTA00730508  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 15 of 65 79. Deslin, through its employees and agents, persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff and other minors to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct. 80. At the time Deslin persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Deslin knew that the Plaintiff was a minor or recklessly disregarded the age of the Plaintiff. 81. To persuade, to induce and to entice the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Deslin, through its employees and agents, provided alcohol or caused or directed that alcohol to be provided alcohol to the Plaintiff and offered cash, prizes and other incentives to the Plaintiff 82. The following conduct of Deslin was outrageous: (a) Providing alcohol or causing or permitting alcohol to be provided to the minor Plaintiff to reduce her inhibitions; (b) Persuading, inducing, enticing and instructing the Plaintiff to engage in sexually-explicit conduct herself and with other minors; (c) Subjecting the Plaintiff to demeaning, degrading, inappropriate, exploitive and illegal conduct during the Contests; (d) Videotaping and permitting the videotaping by others of the Plaintiff engaged in sexually-explicit conduct herself and with other minors; (e) Causing the use, dissemination or distribution of the videotapes of the Plaintiff engaged in sexually-explicit conduct herself and with other minors. 83. Deslin knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result from their outrageous conduct. 15 EFTA00730509  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 16 of 65 84. The outrageous conduct of Deslin has caused severe emotional distress and other harm to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this count for damages (including punitive damages), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Count 4: Unjust Enrichment Westin) 85. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations of J1 - ¶49 above. 86. This is a claim for unjust enrichment against Deslin. 87. Deslin, through its employees and agents, persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct. 88. At the time Deslin persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Deslin knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was a minor or reasonably appeared to be a minor. 89. To persuade, to induce and to entice the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Deslin, through its employees and agents, provided alcohol or caused or directed that alcoholic be provided to the Plaintiff and offered cash, prizes and other incentives to the Plaintiff 90. The videotaped and live conduct of the Plaintiff in the Contests conferred an economic benefit to Deslin, including, but not limited to, revenue from admissions to the pool deck area on the day Plaintiff participated in the Contests, the sale of food and beverages on the day Plaintiff participated in the Contests, revenue generated from the sale or use of the videotapes of the Plaintiff in the Contests, and revenue generated from the advertising of the Desert Inn in the videos of the Plaintiff in the Contests, including the Barton Tapes. 16 EFTA00730510  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 17 of 65 91. Deslin appreciated and accepted the economic benefits conferred upon them by the videotaped and live conduct of the Plaintiff. 92. The acceptance and retention of the economic benefits by Deslin under the circumstances would be inequitable. 93. Plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy. This claim is asserted in the alternative to any legal claims asserted by the Plaintiff against this Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this count for damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Count 5: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a) (Goldrush and Barton) 94. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations °Ell - 1[49 above. 95. This a claim brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) against Goldrush and Barton for violations of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a). 96. Goldrush was hired to act as Master of Ceremonies and a deejay for the Contests and to videotape the sexually-explicit performances of the Plaintiff and other minors. 97. Barton and other Goldrush employees and agents persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff and other minors to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct. 98. Barton and other Goldrush employees and agents created the Barton Tapes by videotaping the sexually-explicit conduct of the Plaintiff and other minors in the Contests. 99. Barton and other Goldrush employees and agents knowingly made, printed or published notices and advertisements offering to distribute or reproduce the Goldrush Videos. 17 EFTA00730511  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 18 of 65 100. Goldrush and Barton knew or had reason to know that such notices and advertisements would be transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Alternatively, such notices and advertisements were transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 101. The above-described acts of Goldrush and Barton constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a). 102. The above-described acts of Goldrush and Barton were intentional or were committed with reckless disregard for or conscious indifference of applicable law, the consequences of those acts, the exploitive nature of those acts and the rights and safety of the Plaintiff. 103. As a proximate cause of the violations of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a), the Plaintiff has suffered personal injury and other damages. 104. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, her attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and costs incurred as a result of any violations of 18 U.S.C. §225 I (a). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this count for damages (including punitive damages), all remedies available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Count 6: Violations of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a) (goldrush and Barton) 105. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations of q1 - 149 above. 106. This a claim brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) against Goldrush and Barton for violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a). 18 EFTA00730512  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 19 of 65 107. After Goldrush and Barton created the Barton Tapes, Goldrush and Barton knowingly transported or shipped the Barton Tapes, in whole or in part, in interstate or foreign commerce. 108. At the time Goldrush and Barton mailed, transported, shipped or distributed the Barton Tapes, Goldrush and Barton had positive knowledge or they were consciously and willfully ignorant of the fact that the Barton Tapes depicted minors, including the Plaintiff. engaging in sexually-explicit conduct. 109. The above-described acts of Goldrush and Barton constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a). 110. The above-described acts of Goldrush and Barton were intentional or were committed with reckless disregard for or conscious indifference of the laws of the United States, the consequences of those acts, the exploitive nature of those acts and the illegal nature of those acts. III. As a proximate cause of the violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a), the Plaintiff has suffered personal injury and other damages. 112. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, her attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and costs incurred as a result of any violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this count for damages (including punitive damages), all remedies available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Count 7: Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a) (Goldrush and Barton) 113. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations ofil -1[49 above. 19 EFTA00730513  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 20 of 65 114. This a claim brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) and 18 U.S.C. §2252A(f) against Goldrush and Barton for violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a). 115. After Goldrush and Barton created the Barton Tapes, Goldrush and Barton knowingly mailed, transported, shipped or distributed the Barton Tapes, in whole or in part, in interstate or foreign commerce. 116. At the time Goldrush and Barton mailed, transported, shipped or distributed the Barton Tapes, Goldrush and Barton had positive knowledge or they were consciously and willfully ignorant of the fact that the Barton Tapes depicted minors, including the Plaintiff, engaged in sexually-explicit conduct, and constituted child pornography. 117. The above-described acts of Goldrush and Barton constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a). 118. The above-described acts of Goldrush and Barton were intentional or were committed with reckless disregard for or conscious indifference of the laws of the United States, the consequences of those acts, the exploitive nature of those acts and the illegal nature of those acts. 119. As a proximate cause of the violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a), the Plaintiff has suffered personal injury and other damages. 120. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) and 18 U.S.C. §2252A(f), the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, her attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and costs incurred as a result of each and every violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this count for damages (including punitive damages), all remedies available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) and 18 U.S.C. §2252A(f), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. 20 EFTA00730514  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 21 of 65 Count 8: Common Law Neelieence (Goldrush and Barton) 121. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations of II - ¶49 above. 122. This is a claim for negligence against Goldrush and Barton. 123. At all relevant times, Goldrush and Barton had a duty not to provide alcohol to persons under the age of 21. At a minimum, Goldrush and Barton had a duty not to encourage or to recklessly tolerate underage consumption of alcohol and a duty to take reasonable measures, such as checking drivers' licenses, to confirm the age of those who reasonably appeared to be under the age of 21 before providing them with alcohol. 124. At all relevant times, Goldrush and Barton had a duty not to permit minors to participate in the Contests. 125. To persuade, to induce and to entice the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Goldrush and Barton, among other things, (a) provided alcohol or caused or directed that alcohol be provided to the Plaintiff to reduce her inhibitions, and (b) offered cash, prizes and other incentives to entice the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests. 126. At the time Goldrush and Barton provided alcohol or directed that alcohol be provided to the Plaintiff, Goldrush and Barton had positive knowledge that the Plaintiff was under the age of 21. Alternatively, Goldrush and Barton knew that the Plaintiff reasonably appeared to be under the age of 21, but Goldrush and Barton failed to take reasonable steps to confirm the age of the Plaintiff. 127. Goldrush and Barton breached their duty of care by, among other things, providing alcohol or causing or permitting alcohol to be provided to the Plaintiff and by permitting the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests. 21 EFTA00730515  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 22 of 65 128. As a proximate result of the breach of duty by Goldrush and Barton, the Plaintiff has sustained damages, including, but not limited to, damages related to the Plaintiff's conduct in the Contests and being videotaped while engaging in sexually-explicit conduct during the Contests. 129. The above-described acts of Goldrush and Barton were committed with reckless disregard for or conscious indifference of applicable law, the consequences of those acts, the exploitive nature of those acts and the rights and safety of the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this Count for damages (including punitive damages), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Count 9: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Goldrush and Barton) 130. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations °ill -149 above. 131. This is a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Goldrush and Barton. 132. Goldrush and Barton persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct. 133. At the time Goldrush and Barton persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Goldrush and Barton knew the Plaintiff was a minor or recklessly disregarded the age of the Plaintiff. 134. To persuade, to induce and to entice the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Goldrush and Barton, among other things, provided alcohol or caused or directed that alcohol to be provided alcohol to the Plaintiff and offered cash, prizes and other incentives to the Plaintiff. 135. The following conduct of Goldrush and Barton was outrageous: 22 EFTA00730516  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 23 of 65 (a) Persuading, inducing, enticing and instructing the Plaintiff and other minors to engage in sexually-explicit conduct in the Contests; (b) Subjecting the Plaintiff to demeaning, degrading, inappropriate, exploitive and illegal conduct; (c) Videotaping the Plaintiff and other minors engaged in such sexually-explicit conduct; (d) Providing alcohol or directing that alcohol be provided to the minor Plaintiff to reduce her inhibitions. 136. Goldrush and Barton knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result from their outrageous conduct. 137. The outrageous conduct of Goldrush and Barton caused severe emotional distress and other harm to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants named in this Count for damages (including punitive damages), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Count 10: Unjust Enrichment (Goldrush and Barton) 138. Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations of q1 - 149 above. 139. This is a claim for unjust enrichment against Goldrush and Barton. 140. Goldrush and Barton persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct. 141. At the time Goldrush and Barton persuaded, induced and enticed the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Goldrush and Barton knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was a minor or reasonably appeared to be a minor. 23 EFTA00730517  Case 8:05-cv-00692-JSM-TGW Document 41 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 24 of 65 142. To persuade, to induce and to entice the Plaintiff to participate in the Contests and to engage in sexually-explicit conduct, Goldrush and Barton, among other things, (a) provided alcohol or caused or directed that alcohol be provided to the Plaintiff to reduce her inhibitions and (b) offered cash, prizes and other incentives. 143. The videotaped and live conduct of the Plaintiff in the Contests conferred an economic benefit to Goldrush and Barton, including, but not limited to, fees or salaries received by Goldrush and Barton for their "services" on the pool deck of the Desert Inn and any revenue that may have been generated from the sale or use of Barton Tapes depicting the Plaintiff in the Contests. 144. Goldrush and Barton appreciated and accepted the economic benefit conferred upon them by the videotaped and live conduct of the Plaintiff. 145. The acceptanc