MARK L. DAWSON, ESQ. (State Bar No.

166956)
JAY W. BROWN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 176079)
HENGESBACH & DAWSON
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 205
Danville, CA 94526
Tel: (925) 718-1040
Fax: (925) 743-1148
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
ASHLEIGH BLAKE, individually; ASHLEIGH
BLAKE, on behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES
ASHLEIGH BLAKE, individually;
ASHLEIGH BLAKE, on behalf of Similarly
Situated Individuals,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MISS CALIFORNIA, USA, a California
Corporation; MISS UNIVERSE
ORGANIZATION, a Corporation registered
to do business in California; CHASE THE
CROWN, a California Corporation; K2
PRODUCTIONS, a California Corporation;
NBC UNIVERSAL, a Corporation registered
to do business in California; KEITH LEWIS,
an Individual; ERIK DESANDOS, an
Individual; DONALD TRUMP, an Individual;
DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ, aka DOMINGO
IVAN CASANAS aka DOMINGO IVAN aka
IVAN DOMINGO; and DOES 1 - 100,
inclusive,

Case No. SC121716

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
2. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
3. NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION
4. FALSE ADVERTISING
5. UNFAIR COMPETITION
6. BREACH OF CONTRACT
7. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
8. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Defendants.
Plaintiff, ASHLEIGH BLAKE (hereinafter referred to as PLAINTIFF) complains
against defendants MISS CALIFORNIA, USA, a California corporation; MISS UNIVERSE
ORGANIZATION, (hereinafter referred to as MUO), a corporation registered to do business in
California; CHASE THE CROWN, a California corporation; K2 PRODUCTIONS, a California
corporation; NBC UNIVERSAL, a Corporation registered to do business in California; KEITH

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

LEWIS, an Individual; ERIK DESANDOS, an Individual; DONALD TRUMP, an Individual;

DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ aka DOMINGO IVAN CASANAS, aka DOMINGO IVAN, aka
IVAN DOMINGO; and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive (hereinafter collectively referred to as
DEFENDANTS), as follows:
I.
1.

INTRODUCTION

This complaint demonstrates that the widely rumored, if seldom proven, abusive,

exploitative, degrading and reprehensible entertainment industry practice known as the casting
couch, where-in usually middle-aged or older men in a position to advance or pretend to
advance an often nave young womans career, offers to do so in return for sexual favors, is
hardly a victimless crime. Likewise, this reprehensible practice is also well known in the beauty
pageant industry, at least as far as the DEFENDANTS enterprises were concerned.
Specifically, this complaint demonstrates how DEFENDANTS have consistently failed to
responsibly train, supervise, vet and screen personnel either directly hired and/or contracted by
the pageant organizations. DEFENDANTS have also turned a blind eye to known exploitative,
abusive and dangerous propensities, inclinations, and past criminal associations and accusations.
2.

Such reckless indifference, and unsupervised thrusting of unsuspecting young

girls into the clutches of hired and contracted alleged sexual predators and deviants, has resulted
in the victimization and resulting injuries by would be and actual pageant contestants, such as
PLAINTIFF, who entrusted her safety and welfare to a presumed professional and reputable
organization.
3.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that the so-called professional

recruiters employed and/or retained by DEFENDANTS on behalf of their lucrative pageants are
known scam artists with lengthy track records of manipulating desperate clients with false
promises of fame. Moreover, their misconduct, and lodged allegations of impropriety are well
known to DEFENDANTS.
4.

Specifically, although state directors and recruiters sign contracts promising to

uphold the "upstanding reputation and image" of the Miss Universe organization (MUO), and all
of its associated enterprises, on information and belief, it is alleged in this complaint that no one

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

is actually doing anything to monitor and/or supervise the franchises to make sure they actually
are in line with the promises made by MUO. On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that
there is ineffective, and/or non-existing vetting or background checking of DEFENDANTS
agents despite readily ascertainable information suggesting alarming and material character,
criminal and reputational issues plaguing their agents.
5.

Unfortunately, PLAINTIFF became a victim of defendant, DOMINGO

RODRIGUEZ (RODRIGUEZ), a pageant recruiter for MUO. Under the guise of an individual
wanting to assist PLAINTIFF in launching a modeling career, and doing well in the Miss
California Pageant, RODRIGUEZ, gained PLAINTIFFs trust, enticed PLAINTIFF with
promises of modeling contracts, magazine cover opportunities, and mentorship throughout the
Miss California Pageant. The promises were nothing but a mere ploy to entice PLAINTIFF into
performing sexual favors for RODRIGUEZ. But for DEFENDANTS certainly ineffective, or
perhaps non-existent profiling, background checks, or vetting; PLAINTIFF would never had
been thrust into RODRIGUEZ disgusting scheme for personal sexual gratification.
6.

As a result of DEFENDANTS misconduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered damages in

an amount to be proven at trial. These damages include, among other things, psychological
damage, mental anguish and emotional distress, humiliation, lost opportunities, and other
financial damage.
II.
7.

FACTS

On or about November 07, 2012, PLAINTIFF was contacted by a recruiter

operating on behalf of defendant MISS CALIFORNIA USA through GotCast.com to apply and
enter the upcoming Miss California Pageant. PLAINTIFF reviewed the Pageants website, and
was pleased with what it said as to the event being well organized, and a potential launching pad
into a career of which she had always dreamed.
8.

As such, soon after submitting her entry packet, PLAINTIFF was summoned to a

mandatory interview session with pageant recruiter, RODRIGUEZ, at a Clarion Hotel. While
waiting to meet with RODRIGUEZ, for a private one-to-one interview, she, along with other
hopeful contestants to Miss Californias pageants, were shown a promotional video.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

9.

During the one-on-one meeting, RODRIGUEZ immediately began to praise and

compliment PLAINTIFFs astonishing good lookswhich was received as quite flattering.

10.

PLAINTIFF then informed RODRIGUEZ that she could not afford the entry fee,

consisting of an initial and nonrefundable $895 deposit fee. RODRIGUEZ assured PLAINTIFF
that she was not to worry about the entry fee, and offered to help her find sponsors to cover the
fee. Moreover, he offered to land her some paid modeling jobs. In particular, he indicated that
he knew of a Miami-based magazine in need of a Cover Model immediately. RODRIGUEZ
said all the right words to pique the interest of this young unsuspecting young lady, whose life
was soon to change forever.
11.

A few days later, RODRIGUEZ followed up via email indicating that the two

could arrange to meet on another occasion to discuss how he could take [her] to the next level.
The contact continued via email and text, each time RODRIGUEZ reminded PLAINTIFF of the
career opportunity he intended to help her to land so long as she remained by his side.
12.

Although optimistic about actually embarking on a modeling career, PLAINTIFF

felt reservations about RODRIGUEZ, and his determination to help her whom he had only
recently met, without even knowing her. As such, PLAINTIFF contacted defendant K2
PRODUCTIONS (hereinafter referred to as K2) to inquire about RODRIGUEZ, and she was
immediately told that RODRIGUEZ was in fact a trusted recruiting agent who was actually
employed by defendant CHASE THE CROWN (hereinafter referred to as CHASE THE
CROWN), which is the official contracted recruiting agency for Miss California and Miss USA.
13.

As such, feeling more at ease, since RODRIGUEZ was an individual K2 had

vouched for, she sent a text to RODRIGUEZ to learn more of the modeling opportunity he was
willing to help her book.
14.

RODRIGUEZ then requested modeling photos. PLAINTIFF sent the only four (4)

pictures she had available. Shortly after sending the pictures, PLAINTIFF was contacted by a
woman claiming to be associated with RODRIGUEZ from Life Talent Ltd. This woman
informed her that her agency dealt in assignments that ran from G-Rated to X-rated. PLAINTIFF
immediately responded that she would not be interested in sexually explicit modeling.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

RODRIGUEZ later asked for photos to be sent to him directly, as he would need them to show to
his contacts.
15.

A few minutes after sending him a modeling photo depicting her in a swimsuit,

RODRIGUEZ called PLAINTIFF indicating that the magazine would be selecting her for the
cover and that she would be able to net 80% of the paycheck. However, in order for the cover to
be given to her; he advised that he would first need to meet her in-person to discuss the
agreement.
16.

In the days before the meeting, RODRIGUEZ sent PLAINTIFF inspirational texts

such as: "Keep smilingvisualize success."

17.

On the day of the meeting, PLAINTIFF was surprised to learn that the meeting

would take place inside RODRIGUEZ car at a Starbucks parking lot.

18.

During the in-car meeting, RODRIGUEZ explained the terms of the oral

contract. Specifically, he explained that in exchange for sexual favors and oral sex commencing
during the time of the meeting, she would be Fast-Track[ed] to the topas 90% of those
who are successful do.
19.

RODRIGUEZ added that if PLAINTIFF performed sexual favors for other

successful men, her path to fame would be guaranteed. PLAINTIFF instantly became
apprehensive, upset and in-shock over what RODRIGUEZ, a pageant agent, was proposing. She
immediately exited the vehicle, confused, crying, and in fear for her safety.
20.

As evidenced in Exhibit A attached hereto, the following day PLAINTIFF

attempted to file a criminal complaint with the Tracy Police Department, only to be told that
since RODRIGUEZ had not physically forced her to engage in a sexual act, her only recourse
was a civil one. (A true and correct copy of Tracy Police Department Call for Service, dated
December 8, 2012, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
21.

PLAINTIFF then contacted defendant KEITH LEWIS (hereinafter referred to as

LEWIS), the then State Director for defendant MISS CALIFORNIA USA and Miss California
Teen USA, and co-director of K2, which had vouched for RODRIGUEZ via email as evidenced
by Pages 1-3 of Exhibit B. (A true and correct copy of various email correspondence sent by

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

and received from PLAINTIFF, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.)

22.

LEWIS emailed PLAINTIFF that he was horrified by her experience and

promised to remedy the situation. He also cautioned her that she not discuss the ordeal with
anyone "to prevent the possibility of tainting the outcome." It was becoming clearer to
PLAINTIFF that instead of helping her and addressing the larger situation within the
organization LEWIS was seeking to institute a cover-up.
23.

Two days later, as evidenced by Page 4 of Exhibit B, LEWIS sent a follow-up

communication that RODRIGUEZ had been dismissed from recruiting functions by CHASE
THE CROWN. Then he advised that neither he nor the police would do anything further on the
matter. Nevertheless, LEWIS assured PLAINTIFF that he would attempt to get PLAINTIFF a
therapist.
24.

However, LEWIS never visited the subject again, even though PLAINTIFF

followed up by email concerning the status of the search for a therapist.

25.

Further, LEWIS has since denied ever receiving any communication from

PLAINTIFF inquiring about the therapist. Instead, again, in a self-serving email communication,
he defended his lack of follow-up, by stating that he felt PLAINTIFF was no longer interested in
seeking help. At which point PLAINTIFF realized that DEFENDANTS would not be doing
anything to aid her through this horrific ordeal.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
26.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts that LEWIS, and his organization,

share a close connection with CHASE THE CROWN founder and former president defendant
ERIK DESANDOS (DESANDOS).
27.

Specifically, their close relationship goes back 25 years, when LEWIS and

DESANDO jointly ran their own individual talent agencies. The two publicly announced a
"strategic alliance" in 2004, moved into the same office building, and shared some of the same
employees.
28.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts that the two agencies and their

employees shared information, knowledge, and intimate details regarding their businesses.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

29.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts that shortly after LEWIS became

the state director for MISS CALIFORNIA USA, DESANDO used his connection with LEWIS to
launch Be Productions LLC, promoted as the "undisputed destination for young artists interested
in realizing their dreams."
30.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts that Be Production's Talent

Director was RODRIGUEZ, then known as Domingo Casaas. The seamy trio
RODRIGUEZ, LEWIS, and DESANDO - had solidified their business relationship.
31.

In 2009, an ABC News investigation led to a widely publicized federal class

action lawsuit against Be Productions, which is still pending.

32.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts, that the lawsuit accused Be

Productions of swindling over $20 million from more than 6,000 families by attempting to sidestep state consumer protection laws designed to prevent mass scam operations plaguing the talent
industry. RODRIGUEZ, played a central role in the alleged scam.
33.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts that, prior to the publicity fall-out

caused by the lawsuit, Be Productions had been listed on the official MISS CALIFORNIA USA
website under official pageant "recruiters" along-side DESANDO and RODRIGUEZ. Once the
scandal hit DESANDO changed his name to "John, launched CHASE THE CROWN, and
brought on RODRIGUEZ.
34.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF asserts that, LEWIS then began to market

and advertise CHASE THE CROWN as "the official recruitment and marketing arm for K2
Productions" in a variety of official MUO materials and press releases.
35.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that DESANDOS has also been

linked to sex scandals associated with DEFENDANTS. Specifically, he too was suddenly
dismissed from his recruiting functions following allegations of similar opportunistic sexual
favors in exchange for stardom.
36.

As evidenced in Exhibit D, an international internet news magazine, JEZEBEL,

reported that an anonymous source close to the issue revealed that MUO higher-ups told
LEWIS that they had received too many serious complaints about DESANDOS behavior.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

According to another source, one complaint reported that DESANDOS often sent girls a shirtless
photo of himself posing as a former congressman and notorious sexter, Anthony Weiner. (A trues
and correct copy of the Jezebel article dated March 11, 2013, is attached hereto as Exhibit D.)
37.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that DESANDOS dismissal

following the complaints is a mere faade, aimed at avoiding ongoing exposure of liability for
DEFENDANTS. Specifically, DESANDOS still very much continues to be involved through his
sister, who now officially figure-heads CHASE THE CROWN.
38.

Moreover, DESANDOS personal website up until recently continued to say that

he still worked in "marketing and recruitment" for K2.

39.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that DESANDOS has continued

to promote himself by affirming that he continues to work with K2. As of November 20, 2014,
the California Secretary of States office lists DESANDOS as the Agent for Service of Process
for CHASE THE CROWN. Additionally, several other Miss USA franchise websites are still
owned by DESANDOS and up until LEWISs dismissal, were being used by K2 and LEWIS as
their official application pages for prospective beauty queens.
40.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that DESANDOS reputed best

friend and former roommate was John B. Hawkins, a model and one-time Studio 54 bartender
who was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, insurance fraud and grand theft and
sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for devising a scheme in the late '80s to murder a man in
order to collect a $1.5 million life insurance policy.
41.

Of particular relevance is the fact that DESANDOS lived with John B. Hawkins

during the time that the murder was planned, allowed Hawkins to use him as an alias, according
to an FBI report, and he was the one who signed for the insurance payout, according to Law and
Ordinance. The Jezebel article contained additional information suggesting that DESANDO was
less-than-credible at trial.
42.

Said information should have caused great concern, alarm, and caution with any

organization that solicits young unsuspecting females.

43.

Following PLAINTIFFs complaints and plea for assistance from

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS, the only real change, as has occurred in the past, are the name changes and
replacement of figure heads.
THE PARTIES
44.

Defendant MISS CALIFORNIA USA is, and at all times relevant herein was, a

corporation/organization doing business, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. At all
times relevant herein, MISS CALIFORNIA USA was an organization that held itself out to the
general public and its contestants, and thus, to PLAINTIFF, as a responsible, safe and
professional organization sufficiently skilled, knowledgeable and dutiful to protect the wellbeing
of its pageant hopefuls and/or contestants at the state level. Defendant DOMINGO
RODRIGUEZ was a de-facto employee of MISS CALIFORNIA USA.
45.

Defendant MISS UNIVERSE ORGANIZATION (MUO) is, and at all times

relevant herein was, a corporation/organization doing business through its subsidiary and/or
affiliate state Pageant, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. At all times relevant
herein, MUO was an organization that held itself out to the general public and its contestants,
and thus, to PLAINTIFF, as a responsible, safe and professional organization that was
sufficiently skilled, knowledgeable and committed to protecting the well-being of pageant
hopefuls and/or contestants. RODRIGUEZ was a de-facto employee of MUO.
46.

Defendant CHASE THE CROWN, at all times relevant herein was, a California

corporation, whose Agent for Service of Process was listed on the website of the California
Secretary of State as of November 20, 2014 is listed as Defendant, Erik John DeSandos. The
address listed for both CHASE THE CROWN and DESANDOS is 8033 Sunset Blvd., #626,
Hollywood, CA 90046. At all times relevant herein, CHASE THE CROWN was the official
recruiting agency for the MISS CALIFORNIA USA pageant. At all times relevant herein,
CHASE THE CROWN was an organization that held itself out to the general public and
contestants, and thus, to PLAINTIFF, as a responsible, safe and professional organization
sufficiently skilled, knowledgeable and committed to protecting the well-being of its pageant
hopefuls and/or contestants at the State level. RODRIGUEZ was a de-facto employee of
CHASE THE CROWN.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

47.

Defendant K2 PRODUCTIONS (K2) at all times relevant herein was, a California

Corporation, whose Agent for Service of Process is listed on the website of the California
Secretary of State as of November 20, 2014 as Tim Shields, 30 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA
92606. At all times relevant herein, K2 was the production company for the Miss California
USA pageant. At all times relevant herein, K2 was an organization that held itself out to the
general public and its contestants, and thus, to PLAINTIFF, as a responsible, safe and
professional organization sufficiently skilled, knowledgeable and committed to protecting the
well-being of its pageant hopefuls and/or contestants. Defendant DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ was
a de-facto employee of K2.
48.

Defendant NBCUniversal (NBC) is, and at all times relevant herein was and is a

corporation/organization doing business through its subsidiary and/or affiliates in the State of
California. NBCs headquarters is at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112. NBCs
California affiliate is located at 3000 W. Alameda Ave., Burbank, CA 91523. NBC, together
with Defendant DONALD TRUMP (TRUMP), is the joint venture owner of MUO and all
associated enterprises including MISS CALIFORNIA USA. On the MUO website, under the
heading Corporate Information, MUO characterizes itself as a Donald J. Trump and
NBCUniversal joint venture. TRUMP acquired MUO in 1996. Originally broadcast on CBS,
TRUMP moved the pageants to NBC in 2002. TRUMP reportedly gave NBC a 50% share in
pageants, which TRUMP estimated to be worth $50 million in 2002. As 50% owner of the Miss
Universe contest NBC was, at all times relevant herein, the de-facto employer of RODRIGUEZ,
ERIK JOHN DESANDOS and KEITH LEWIS, and together with Defendant DONALD
TRUMP, the parent employers of Defendants MISS CALIFORNIA USA, MUO, K2 and CHASE
THE CROWN. It is well established law that an employer may be held liable for the actions of
its employees, Jeffrey E. v. Central Baptist Church 197 Cal.App.3d 718 (1988); Alhino v. Starr
112 Cal.App. 3d 158 (1980), Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School District, 123 Cal.App.3d133
(1981). Denver attorney Brian E. Kuhn explains that the theory of employer liability of the
actions of an employee is based on two basic principles. The first is that employers are seen as
directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well the

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

10

bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards
of an employees labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability is that behavior results in
harm. The second is that when someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated,
who is the most likely to pay, the employee or the employerthe legal system is interested in
making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employer has the
best chance of meeting that goal. Further, California attorneys, James A. Creason, Esq. and
Larry A. Dunlap discuss factors that either mitigate or exacerbate an employers liability, writing
that Generally speaking, whether an employer is vicariously liable for the act of an employee
turns upon whether the act was either required by, or incident to, employment, or was foreseeable
by the employer(thus) If either prong of this test is satisfied, the employer is liable for injury
caused by the employee, even if the act was willful or malicious. The actions of RODRIGUEZ
satisfy both of these prongs, in that his actions were both incident to his employment and
foreseeable to anyone who had the best interests and safety of young women contestants and
would-be contestants of Miss Universe, Miss USA or Miss Teen USA in mind and any but the
most nave suppositions about the dangers posed by potentially unscrupulous older male
recruiters who had contest and/or organization sanctioned access to attractive young women and
their dreams. The general legal doctrine that an employer is responsible for the actions of his
employees, Respondeat superior (Let the master answer), holds that an employer is nearly
universally vicariously responsible for the actions of their employees provided those actions are
performed during the course of their employment. The doctrine is more well-known as the
Master-Servant rule, which is well recognized in both common and civil law. The actions of
RODRIGUEZ were clearly conducted within the course of his employment as demonstrated by
the emails from .
49.

Defendant KEITH LEWIS (LEWIS) is, and at all times relevant herein was, an

individual doing business at 1200 N. Doheny Dr.West Hollywood, CA 90069. At all times
relevant herein, LEWIS was the pageant director for the MISS CALIFORNIA USA pageant, as
well as the owner of K2, licensees of the MISS CALIFORNIA USA pageant. In doing all things
alleged herein, LEWIS was acting as an individual, a principal and/or agent of K2, and the agent,

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

11

Licensee, of the MISS CALIFORNIA USA pageant organization and served in a supervisory
capacity to RODRIGUEZ.
50.

Defendant Erik John Desandos (DESANDOS) is, and at all times relevant herein,

an individual doing business at 8033 Sunset Blvd., #626, Hollywood, CA 90046. At all times
relevant herein Defendant worked a recruiter and supervised other recruiters for Miss Universe,
Miss USA and Miss Teen USA. DESANDOS is listed as the Agent for Service of Process of
CHASE THE CROWN, official recruiting agency for MUO and served in a supervisory capacity
to RODRIGUEZ.
51.

Defendant Donald Trump (TRUMP), is an individual doing business at 725 Fifth

Avenue, New York, NY 10022. TRUMP, together with Defendant NBCUniversal (NBC), is the
joint venture owner of Defendant Miss Universe Organization (MUO). On the MUO website,
under the heading Corporate Information, MUO characterizes itself as a Donald J. Trump and
NBCUniversal joint venture. TRUMP first acquired MUO in 1996 and moved the Miss
Universe, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pageants to NBC in 2002. The deal reportedly gave
NBC a 50% share, which was estimated by TRUMP to be worth $50 million in 2002. As 50%
owner of the Miss Universe contest TRUMP was, at all times relevant herein, a de-facto
employer of RODRIGUEZ, DESANDOS and LEWIS, and together with Defendant NBC, the
parent company of Defendants MISS CALIFORNIA USA, MUO, K2 and CHASE THE
CROWN. It is generally well established law that an employer may be held liable for the actions
of its employees, Jeffrey E. v. Central Baptist Church 197 Cal.App.3d 718 (1988); Alhino v.
Starr 112 Cal.App. 3d 158 (1980), Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School District, 123
Cal.App.3d133 (1981), etc. Denver attorney Brian E. Kuhn explains that the theory of employer
liability of the actions of an employee is based on two basic principles. The first is that
employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in
the good as well the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally
entitled to the rewards of an employees labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability is
that behavior results in harm. The second is that when someone is injured or harmed and
needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay, the employee or the employerthe legal

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

12

system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather
than the employer has the best chance of meeting that goal. Further, California attorneys, James
A. Creason, Esq. and Larry A. Dunlap discuss factors that either mitigate or exacerbate an
employers liability, writing that Generally speaking, whether an employer is vicariously liable
for the act of an employee turns upon whether the act was either required by, or incident to,
employment, or was foreseeable by the employer(thus) If either prong of this test is
satisfied, the employer is liable for injury caused by the employee, even if the act was willful or
malicious. The actions of RODRIGUEZ satisfy both of these prongs, in that his actions were
both incident to his employment and foreseeable to anyone who had the best interests and safety
of young women contestants and would-be contestants of Miss Universe, Miss USA or Miss
Teen USA in mind and any but the most nave assumptions concerning the actions that might
possibly be undertaken by unscrupulous older male recruiters presented with the temptations of
contest and organizationally sanctioned access to attractive young women and their dreams. The
general legal doctrine that an employer is responsible for the actions of his employees,
Respondeat superior (let the master answer), holds that an employer is nearly universally at
least vicariously responsible for the actions of their employees provided those actions are
performed during the course of their employment. The doctrine is more well-known as the
Master-Servant rule, which is well recognized in both common and civil law. The actions of
RODRIGUEZ were clearly conducted within the course of his employment.
52.

Defendant DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ (RODRIGUEZ) and, subsequently his

estate is, and at all times relevant herein was, an individual doing business at 1200 N. Doheny
Dr.,West Hollywood, CA 90069, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. At all times
relevant herein, RODRIGUEZ was an official recruiter for the MISS CALIFORNIA USA
pageant, as well as an official recruitment agent of CHASE THE CROWN, the official recruiting
agency for MISS CALIFORNIA USA. In doing all things alleged herein, RODRIGUEZ was
acting as an individual, a principal and/or agent of K2, and the agent, Licensee, of MISS
CALIFORNIA USA. Recent information received by the PLAINTIFF, since the initial filing of
this complaint appears to show that RODRIGUEZ died recently in the Dominican Republic. If

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

13

those reports are confirmed RODRIGUEZ personal liability in this matter will be transferred to
his estate.
53.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural or corporate,

partnership, associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, are unknown to

PLAINTIFF who therefore sues said DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names. The full extent of
the facts linking such fictitiously sued DEFENDANTS is unknown to PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF
is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of the DEFENDANTS designated as a
DOE herein was, and is, intentionally, negligently, or in some other actionable manner,
responsible for the events and happenings hereafter referred to, and thereby intentionally,
negligently, or in some other actionable manner, legally and proximately caused the hereinafter
described injuries and damages to PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF will hereinafter seek leave of the
Court to amend this complaint to show the fictitiously sued DEFENDANTS true names and
capacities, after the same have been ascertained. References in this Complaint to the named
DEFENDANTS are deemed to include by reference a specific reference to the DOE defendant
designated herein.
54.

At all times mentioned herein, each of the DEFENDANTS was the agent,

principal, partner, alter ego, joint venture, employee and/or authorized representative of at least
one of the DEFENDANTS, and in most cases more than one DEFENDANT and in doing the
things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency, service and
representation and directed, aided and abetted, authorized or ratified each and every act and
conduct hereinafter alleged.
55.

The events causing injury to the PLAINTIFF, as described in this complaint,

occurred within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
56.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Code of Civil

Procedure 395 (a) which states that: . If the action is for injury to personthe superior
court in either the county where the injury occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of
them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

14

57.

DEFENDANTS, and/or most of them, reside in Los Angeles County and as such,

the Los Angeles County Superior Court has jurisdiction in this matter and venue is proper. The
amounts sought to be recovered are well in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court
and are believed to run well in excess of the $15,000,000 stated.
58.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

Sections 395 (a). DEFENDANTS conducted business and committed torts and wrongful acts in
Los Angeles County.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
(Against RODRIGUEZ)
59.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every

allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this referenced as though set
forth in full.
60.

California Civil Code section 51.9 states:

(a) A person is liable in a cause of action for sexual harassment
under this section when the plaintiff proves all of the following
elements:
(1)
There is a business, service, or professional
relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. Such a
relationship may exist between a plaintiff and a person . . .
(2)
The defendant has made sexual advances,
solicitations, sexual requests, demands for sexual compliance by
the plaintiff, or engaged in other verbal, visual, or physical conduct
of a sexual nature or of a hostile nature based on gender, that were
unwelcome and pervasive or severe.
(3)
There is an inability by the plaintiff to easily
terminate the relationship.

The plaintiff has suffered or will suffer economic loss or disadvantage or personal injury,
including, but not limited to, emotional distress or the violation of a statutory or constitutional
right, as a result of the conduct described in paragraph (2).
61.

On December 7, 2102, Defendant DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ, aka DOMINGO

IVAN CASANAS, aka IVAN CASANAS, aka IVAN DOMINGO aka DOMINGO IVAN, met

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

15

with PLAINTIFF in his automobile in a parking lot in Tracy, California. At the meeting
RODRIGUEZ demanded that PLAINTIFF perform a sexual act with RODRIGUEZ in order to
advance her modeling career. Shocked, fearful and distraught, PLAINTIFF bolted from
RODRIGUEZs car. The following day, PLAINTIFF contacted the Tracy Police Department.
PLAINTIFF was informed, incorrectly in the opinion of the PLAINTIFF, that RODRIGUEZ had
not committed a crime because force was not employed or threatened. PLAINTIFF believes,
however, that RODRIGUEZs actions in fact constituted a solicitation to prostitution which is, in
fact, a criminal offense.
62.

Significantly, RODRIGUEZ confessed to both meeting with PLAINTIFF as well

as to Sexual Harassment, when RODRIGUEZ was interviewed by Katie J. M. Baker, a reporter

for Jezebel.com, for an article entitled Big Breaks for Blowjobs: The Dark Underbelly of the
Miss USA Pageant that appeared on March 11, 2013 (See, Exhibit D).: Rodriguez confirmed
to Jezebel in a telephone interview that he had met Ashleigh in his car outside of a Tracy
Starbucks in an attempt to teach her how to succeed in the modeling business. "She told me she
would do whatever it takes, and now she's throwing my help in her face," he said. He denied that
he personally requested a blow job, but said that he told Ashleigh he knew of a magazine where
"young ladies can get on the cover if they do some type of sexual favors with the people at the
magazine." He said he had offered the same option to other young women and that at least one
had taken him up on his offer and was doing very well."
63.

RODRIGUEZs denial of PLAINTIFFs account of the encounter immediately

becomes less credible when RODRIGUEZ relates to Jezebel that he told PLAINTIFF that
young ladies can get on the cover (of an unnamed magazine) if they do some type of sexual
favors with the people at the magazine. In addition to making RODRIGUEZs denial of
PLAINTIFFs version of the encounter significantly less credible, RODRIGUEZ has, in fact,
issued a de-facto admission that he sexually harassed PLAINTIFF. Furthermore, although
RODRIGUEZ claims in the Jezebel article that he was getting PLAINTIFF in contact with a
representative at a Miami magazine, said magazine was purely fictional. It is demonstrated that
he was fraudulently presenting himself as the Miami representative of the non-existent magazine,

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

16

as evidenced in emails between RODRIGUEZs email address ifindtalent@aol.com and

PLAINTIFFs email address, ashleigh.blake@hotmail.com. RODRIGUEZ has previously used
that email address to contact families in regards to multiple complaints of fraud in and around
2009. (http://beproductionsscam.blogspot.com/2009_05_03_archive.html)
64.

Further RODRIGUEZ admits that he has engaged in a pattern of sexual

harassment when he tells Jezebel: He (Rodriguez) said he had offered the same option to other
young women and that at least one had taken him up on his offer and was doing very well."
That RODRIGUEZ admits to a pattern of sexual harassment of Miss USA hopefuls strongly
suggests that his superiors at MISS CALIFORNIA USA, K2, CHASE THE CROWN and MUO
either knew or should have known of RODRIGUEZs outrageous conduct. However, whether or
not RODRIGUEZs superiors in the MISS CALIFORNIA USA, K2, CHASE THE CROWN and
MUO organizations were well aware of RODRIGUEZs pattern of behavior, they are not
relieved of their responsibility for his actions on their behalf. Whether it was their
unconscionable acquiescence in the activities of RODRIGUEZ or neglect becomes more
egregious upon discovery that the shady backgrounds of RODRIGUEZ, DESANDO and LEWIS
could have been easily discovered with a quick internet search as reported the Jezebel article
entitled Topless photos and assless chaps; the hypocrisy of the miss usas code of conduct.
(http://jezebel.com/5993108/topless-photos-and-assless-chaps-the-hypocrisy-of-miss-usas-codeof-conduct)
65.

Per California Civil code 51.9 PLAINTIFF had a professional relationship with

RODRIGUEZ as evidenced by RODRIGUEZs own words. California Civil Code 51.9 lists
professional relationships between plaintiffs and defendants that include physician,
psychotherapist, dentist, attorney.teacher OR a relationship that is substantially similar to any
of the above. In fact, RODRIGUEZs contention in the Jezebel article that he sought to teach
(PLAINTIFF) how to succeed in the modeling business, demonstrates that the professional
relationship between PLAINTIFF and RODRIGUEZ was, in fact, substantially similar to that
of a teacher.
66.

RODRIGUEZ engaged in verbal conduct of a sexual nature that was hostile,

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

17

based on gender, which was unwelcome, pervasive and severe. In his own words, RODRIGUEZ
admits to verbal sexual harassment that had not been requested and as such, was certainly
unwelcome. Although RODRIGUEZ has falsely claimed that he did not initiate even more
degrading, hostile and severe sexual harassment, the pervasive sexual harassment that he does
acknowledge, not only victimized PLAINTIFF, but, as demonstrated by RODRIGUEZ own
words, victimized multiple others as well.
67.

PLAINTIFF was unable to easily end the relationship with RODRIGUEZ if she

wanted to pursue her modeling career plans and plans for competing in the Miss USA/Miss
Universe contests. PLAINTIFF was well aware that to complain about RODRIGUEZ conduct
jeopardized both her modeling career and participation in the Miss USA/Miss Universe contests.
To date that has certainly been the case.
68.

PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer injury as the result of

DEFENDANTS actions. As demonstrated by Exhibit C, a letter from PLAINTIFFs therapist,

Elisabeth McKenna, Ph.D., licensed clinical psychologist PLAINTIFF is clearly suffering
from the trauma of the events involving the Miss USA contest. PLAINTIFFs relationship with
her fianc has also suffered. PLAINTIFFs father has received several phone calls from
PLAINTIFF during which he could hardly understand PLAINTIFF due to her level of emotional
distress. PLAINTIFF expressed fear that her fianc might do something rash and complained of
an estrangement that she felt had been brought about in their relationship due to the events of
December 7, 2012. (A true and correct copy of Elisabeth McKenna, Ph.D.s letter dated
November 3, 2014, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
(By Plaintiff Blake Against All Defendants)
69.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every

allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this referenced as though set
forth in full.
70.

At all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS breached their duty to exercise

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

18

reasonable skill and care in performing their duties in that DEFENDANTS failed to take
adequate steps and create effective safeguards to prevent injury to third persons for the
negligence of their agent(s) in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful
acts committed by such agent in and as a part of the transaction of such business, and for his
willful omission to fulfill the obligations of the principal. California Civil Code 2338.
71.

California recognizes a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and

retention. The causes of action are often presented in the same case, and all three are predicated
on the same basic negligence standard: An employer's duty is breached "when the employer
knows, or should know, facts which would warn a reasonable person that the employee presents
an undue risk of harm to third persons in light of the particular work to be performed." Federico
v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. App. 4th 1207, 1214 (1997).
72.

An employer can also be liable for harm caused by an employee without a

criminal record, if the employer knows or should have known facts which make it more likely
that the person poses a risk to the public. Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church, 8 Cal.
App. 4th 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
73.

DEFENDANTS failed to responsibly supervise; vet and screen personnel hired

and/or contracted by the pageant organization and have turned a blind eye to known dangerous
propensities, inclinations, and past criminal associations and accusations.
74.

Such reckless indifference, and unsupervised thrusting of unsuspecting young

girls into the clutches of hired and contracted alleged sexual predators and deviants, has resulted
in the victimization and resulting injuries by would be and actual pageant contestants, such as
PLAINTIFF, who entrusted her safety and well-being to a presumed professional and reputable
organization.
75.

On information and belief, PLAINTIFF alleges that the so-called professional

recruiters employed and/or retained by DEFENDANTS on behalf of their lucrative pageants are
known scam artists with lengthy track records of manipulating desperate clients with false
promises of fame. Moreover, their misconduct, and lodged allegations of impropriety have been
known to DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

19

76.

PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 69 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

77.

As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS negligence, PLAINTIFF has

been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $15,000,000.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(By Plaintiff Blake Against All Defendants)
78.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every

allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this referenced as though set
forth in full.
79.

DEFENDANTS made the following representations to PLAINTIFF: that they

were a responsible, safe and professional organization sufficiently skilled, knowledgeable,

dutiful and committed to protecting the well-being of its pageant hopefuls and/or contestants;
that they were beholden to maintaining the "upstanding reputation and image" of the Miss
Universe Organization (MUO), and that, PLAINTIFFs best interests were being protected and
served by MISS CALIFORNIA USA and its agents and affiliates.
80.

On information and belief, it is alleged in this complaint that no one is truly doing

anything to monitor and/or supervise the franchises to make sure they actually are in line with
the promises made by MUO.
81.

These representations, made by DEFENDANTS, were false, and at the time these

representations were made, DEFENDANTS had no reasonable grounds to believe they were
true. In fact, sufficient evidence to corroborate DEFENDANTS statements did not exist, and
information was available to DEFENDANTS from which DEFENDANTS could ascertain the
true facts.
82.

In fact, there is ineffective, and/or non-existing vetting or background checking of

DEFENDANTS agents despite readily ascertainable information suggesting alarming and

material character, criminal and reputational issues plaguing their agents.
83.

PLAINTIFF was ignorant of the falsity of the representations made by

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

20

DEFENDANTS and believed them to be true.

84.

PLAINTIFF relied on the representations made by DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFFs reliance on DEFENDANTS representations was reasonable given that

DEFENDANTS represented that that the MISS CALIFORNIA USA organization was a fair,
reputable and professional organization, which protected the pageant hopefuls/contestants.
85.

As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS misrepresentations and

PLAINTIFFs justifiable reliance thereon, PLAINTIFF suffered considerable economic damages

in an estimated amount to be proven at the time of trial. This amount includes, among other
things, therapist costs, lost opportunities and fees and costs PLAINTIFF is incurring in litigation.
86.

As a further direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS misconduct,

PLAINTIFF has suffered and will continue to suffer general damages, including emotional
distress, anxiety, humiliation, and reputational injury in an amount according to proof at trial.
///
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FALSE ADVERTISEMENT
(By Plaintiff Blake Against All Defendants)
87.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every

allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this referenced as though set
forth in full.
88.

During 2012 to2013, DEFENDANTS have engaged in advertising to the public,

including PLAINTIFF, and offering for exchange for participation, and commitment to compete
if selected, a fair, unbiased, safe, honest environment free from sexual harassment. Among other
things, DEFENDANTS advertising consisted of internet advertisements, direct solicitation,
flyers, brochures, and oral statements and representations conveying that the Miss California
USA Pageant offered a professional, fair, unbiased, and secure competition to pageant hopefuls.
The advertisements were disseminated to and received by the public, including PLAINTIFF.
89.

DEFENDANTS engaged in the advertising alleged herein with the intent to

directly or indirectly induce PLAINTIFF and others to register, pay an entrance fee and commit

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

21

to the schedule of the pageant competition.

90.

DEFENDANTS advertising was untrue, misleading and likely to deceive the

public, including PLAINTIFF, in that it misrepresented that the pageant was qualified to
facilitate proper safety to contestants, and that the pageant would be staffed with law abiding
personnel and agents. The truth was that DEFENDANTS hire unsafe, criminal, and morally
corrupt individuals who utilize their access to female contestants to carry out their own sexual
deviant pleasures. Moreover, DEFENDANTS had ample notice of the wrongful acts complained
of, yet turned a blind eye to it.
91.

In making and disseminating the untruthful statements and representations,

DEFENDANTS knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the
statements were untrue or misleading and so acted in violation of Section 17500 of the Business
and Professions Code.
92.

DEFENDANTS advertising further violated Section 17530 of the Business and

Professions Code in that DEFENDANTS, with full knowledge of its falsity and with intent to
mislead the public, including PLAINTIFF, disseminated false advertising concerning their ability
and willingness to protect the well-being of pageant hopefuls.
93.

As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS false advertising,

PLAINTIFF has been damaged and continues to sustain damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.
94.

Unless restrained by this Court, DEFENDANTS will continue to engage in untrue

and misleading advertising, as alleged above, in violation of Sections 17500 and 17530 of the
Business and Professions Code, thus tending to render judgment in the instant action ineffectual.
PLAINTIFF, and other similarly situated persons have no adequate remedy at law in that
DEFENDANTS will continue to engage in untrue and misleading advertising, as alleged above,
in violation of Sections 17500 and 17530 of the Business and Professions Code, thus
engendering a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR COMPETITION

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

22

(By Plaintiff Blake Against All Defendants)

95.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every

allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this referenced as though set
forth in full.
96.

DEFENDANTS untrue and misleading advertising also constitutes unfair

competition in violation of Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code.

97.

During and before the 2012 Miss California Pageant, DEFENDANTS engaged in

advertising to the public, including to PLAINTIFF, offering an opportunity to compete for the
title of Miss California 2013. Among other things, DEFENDANTS advertising consisted of
internet advertisements, direct solicitation, flyers, brochures, and oral statements conveying the
fact that the Miss California pageant was a professional organization, honorable and safe. The
advertisements were disseminated to and received by the public, including PLAINTIFF.
98.

DEFENDANTS engaged in the advertising alleged herein with the intent to

directly or indirectly induce PLAINTIFF and others to compete and make themselves available
to the rigors of the competition.
99.

DEFENDANTS advertising was untrue, misleading and likely to deceive the

public, including PLAINTIFF, in that it misrepresented the Miss California pageant was staffed
with qualified, honest, law abiding employees/agents looking out for pageant hopeful best
interests.
100.

In making and disseminating the statements included in DEFENDANTS

advertisements, DEFENDANTS knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known,
that the statements were untrue or misleading and so acted in violation of Section 17200 of the
Business and Professions Code.
101.

As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS untrue and misleading

advertising, PLAINTIFF has been damaged and continue to sustain damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.
102.

Unless restrained by this Court, DEFENDANTS will continue to engage in untrue

and misleading advertising, as alleged above, in violation of Sections 17500 and 17530 of the

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

23

Business and Professions Code, thus tending to render judgment in the instant action ineffectual.
PLAINTIFF has no adequate remedy at law in that DEFENDANTS will continue to engage in
untrue and misleading advertising, as alleged above, in violation of Sections 17500 and 17530 of
the Business and Professions Code, thus engendering a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(By Plaintiff Blake Against All Defendants)
103.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every

allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this referenced as though set
forth in full.
104.

As evidenced from Exhibit B, on or about November 28, 2012, PLAINTIFF

entered into valid contract, both written and oral, with the DEFENDANTS to compete and make
herself available to compete in DEFENDANTS state pageant. Pursuant to the terms of the
contracts, PLAINTIFF agreed to pageant rules, to make herself available, prepare and
aggressively compete for the Miss California title, while the DEFENDANTS agreed to conduct a
fair, unbiased and competent competition. The DEFENDANTS warranted and assured
PLAINTIFF that in exchange and in consideration for PLAINTIFFs agreement to compete, the
DEFENDANTS would:
a.

Facilitate a competent pageant;

b.

Hire competent and qualified personnel;

c.

Act in good faith;

d.

Avoid conflicts of interest;

e.

Abide by all pageant rules; and

f.

Provide a safe environment free from sexual

harassment.

105.

Moreover, DEFENDANTS warranted that the Miss California pageant may help

PLAINTIFFs career. The truth is that DEFENDANTS ran an unsafe, dangerous, and
incompetent pageant, riddled with conflicts of interest, ultimately placing a pageant hopeful in

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

24

serious danger, which has caused much anguish, despair, hardship and humiliation to
PLAINTIFF.
106.

The DEFENDANTS, and each of them, breached the contracts with PLAINTIFF

by, among other things, failing to provide PLAINTIFF with (1) a safe experience; (2) properly
vetted personnel; (3) properly investigating allegations of solicitation sexual favors quid pro quo
career advancement; (4) proper safeguards in place; (5) proper meeting places; and (6) proper
psychological resources. Indeed, PLAINTIFF did not receive the benefits for which she
bargained.
107.

PLAINTIFFs agreement to participate with the DEFENDANT was supported by

sufficient consideration and PLAINTIFF has duly performed all conditions, covenants,
obligations and promises required by her, except as frustrated by the DEFENDANTS, excused
by the DEFENDANTS breach, or extinguished by law.
108.

As a direct and proximate result of the DEFENDANTS breach of contract,

PLAINTIFF has been damaged in an amount which will be subject to proof at trial.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(By Plaintiff Blake Against All Defendants)
109.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every

allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this referenced as though set
forth in full.
110.

The conduct of DEFENDANTS as hereto fore mentioned, and each of them, in

the manner in which they subjected PLAINTIFF to a dangerous, offensive, and degrading
situation where sexual favors were required in order to advance in competition and career, was
extreme and outrageous, and was an abuse of the authority and position of DEFENDANTS. Such
actions of DEFENDANTS were done with the intention of causing PLAINTIFF severe
emotional distress, or were done with a willful and conscious disregard of the likelihood and
probability of causing PLAINTIFF such distress.
111.

PLAINTIFF was required to meet with a dangerous individual, who all other

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

25

DEFENDANTS had reason to know posed a great likelihood of danger, who demanded sexual
gratification in exchange for career advancement. As such, PLAINTIFF has been severely
humiliated.
112.

The actions of DEFENDANTS were intentional and damaging to PLAINTIFF.

113.

DEFENDANTS, in an intentionally outrageous, embarrassing, humiliating and

degrading manner have denied the situation, and have not owned up to the fact that they did not
properly vet their staff and agents before setting them loose onto unsuspecting young ladies.
114.

PLAINTIFF has been the subject of jokes, ridicule, and disparaging comments on

blogs, and public forums. This has hurt her reputation immensely.
115.

The conduct of DEFENDANTS was extreme and outrageous, done in a

malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive manner, was intended to injure PLAINTIFF, was with an
improper and evil motive, amounting to malice and spite caused by DEFENDANTS, and each of
them, and was done in a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFFs rights. PLAINTIFF is therefore
entitled to recover punitive damages from any and all individual DEFENDANTS in an amount
according to proof.
116.

The intentional thrusting of PLAINTIFF into a dangerous situation, by

DEFENDANTS and each of them, was malicious and was done for the purpose of causing
PLAINTIFF to suffer humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress. The
conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, was offensive, oppressive, and reprehensible,
with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to PLAINTIFF.
117.

As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of DEFENDANTS and each of them,

PLAINTIFF has suffered and/or will suffer actual, consequential and incidental financial losses,
in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
PLAINTIFF claims such amounts as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 3287 and/or 3288 and/or other provision of law providing for
prejudgment interest.
118.

As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of DEFENDANTS and each of them,

PLAINTIFF has become mentally upset, distressed, embarrassed, humiliated, and aggravated.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

26

PLAINTIFF claims general damages for such mental and physical distress and aggravation in a
sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
119.

Because the acts taken toward PLAINTIFF were carried out by managerial

employees acting in deliberate, cold, callous, cruel and intentional manner, in conscious
disregard of PLAINTIFFs rights and in order to injure and damage her, PLAINTIFF requests
that punitive damages be levied against any and all individual DEFENDANTS and each of them,
in sums in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(By Plaintiff Blake Against All Defendants)
120.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates as if fully stated herein each and every

allegation contained above and incorporates the same herein by this referenced as though set
forth in full.
121.

The conduct of DEFENDANTS as hereto fore mentioned, and each of them, in

the manner in which they negligently subjected PLAINTIFF to a dangerous, offensive, and
degrading situation where sexual favors were required in order to advance in competition and
career, was extreme and outrageous, and was an abuse of the authority and position of
DEFENDANTS. Such actions of DEFENDANTS caused PLAINTIFF severe emotional
distress.
122.

PLAINTIFF was required to meet with a dangerous individual, who all other

DEFENDANTS had reason to know posed a great likelihood of danger, who demanded sexual
gratification in exchange for career advancement. As such, PLAINTIFF has been severely
humiliated.
123.

The actions of DEFENDANTS were negligent and damaging to PLAINTIFF.

124.

DEFENDANTS, in a negligently outrageous, embarrassing, humiliating and

degrading manner have denied the situation, and have not owned up to the fact that they did not
properly vet their staff and agents before setting them loose onto unsuspecting young ladies.
125.

PLAINTIFF has been the subject of jokes, ridicule, and disparaging comments on

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

27

the internet, blogs, and public forums. This has hurt her reputation immensely.
126.

The negligent conduct of DEFENDANTS was extreme and outrageous, done in a

negligently malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive manner, and resulting in injury to PLAINTIFF,
in disregard of PLAINTIFFS rights. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to recover punitive
damages from any and all individual DEFENDANTS in an amount according to proof.
127.

The negligent thrusting of PLAINTIFF into a dangerous situation, by

DEFENDANTS and each of them, caused PLAINTIFF to suffer humiliation, mental anguish and
emotional and physical distress. The conduct of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, was
offensive, oppressive, and reprehensible, with a wanton and reckless disregard of the
consequences to PLAINTIFF. A thorough examination of Defendants websites failed to reveal
any safeguards to protect vulnerable young women from unscrupulous acts on the part of pageant
recruiters or to inform applicants of behavior on the part of recruiters that was in violation of
pageant standards, if any, that may or may not have existed at the time.
128.

As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of DEFENDANTS and each of them,

PLAINTIFF has suffered and/or will suffer actual, consequential and incidental financial losses,
in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
PLAINTIFF claims such amounts as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 3287 and/or 3288 and/or other provision of law providing for
prejudgment interest.
129.

As a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of DEFENDANTS and each of them,

PLAINTIFF has become mentally upset, distressed, embarrassed, humiliated, and aggravated.
PLAINTIFF claims general damages for such mental and physical distress and aggravation in a
sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
130.

Because the acts taken toward PLAINTIFF were carried out by managerial

employees acting in deliberate, cold, callous, cruel and intentional manner, in conscious
disregard of PLAINTIFFS rights and in order to injure and damage her, PLAINTIFF requests
that punitive damages be levied against any and all individual DEFENDANTS and each of them,
in sums in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

28

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment to be entered against DEFENDANTS,

and each of them, as follows:
1.

For general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

2.

For Pre- and Post-judgment interest according to proof;

3.

For any statutory based relief;

4.

For punitive damages, where applicable;

5.

For Court monitored programs to supervise the recruiting, training, and other

activities of Ms. California USA, Miss USA/Ms. Universe, at which young women are contacted
or in attendance.
6.

To advise, both verbally and in a written manner, would-be Miss USA, Miss Teen

USA and Miss Universe contestants of their rights to be treated with respect by recruiters, to
resist sexual harassment and report it to the Court. For thorough background screening of all
contest employees to be supervised by the Court, particularly of those placed in positions of trust
involving contestants and would-be contestants. For the comprehensive monitoring of all
communications and contacts between male recruiters and contestants and would-be contestants.
For educational programs designed to discourage sexual harassment on the part of contest
employees and to institute a comprehensive program to educate would-be contestants concerning
their rights to ethical and respectful treatment, a means of easily reporting any violations of those
policies, and a non-retaliation policy.
7.

For the hiring of more female recruiters, as well as the presence a female recruiter

during any one on one meetings between male recruiters and young female pageant hopefuls.
8.

For reasonable attorneys fees incurred in the prosecution of each cause of action

where PLAINTIFFs prayer for attorneys fees is supported by contract or applicable law;
9.

For costs of suits incurred herein; and

10.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED:

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

April ___, 2015

29

HENGESBACH & DAWSON

By:

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

30

MARK L. DAWSON
Attorney for Plaintiffs,