Fpr 07 2OOg 4:56Pt ' l

-ic

\.

t3

t4

l5

t6

17

r819

20

2r

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DREIER STEIN KAHA}IBRO\ryNE WOODS GEORGE LLP

Sanon L. Stein (SBN 045997)lstein(ddr ei erstcin, comFred Bl Griffrn (SBN 066027)fgriffi n@dreicrstei n.comMuibeth Annaguey (SBN 228431)mannaguey@dreierstein.oomTheWaterCruden162026lh Steet6th Floor, North TowerSanta Monisq CA 90404Telephone; 3 10.828.9050Facsimile: 3 10.828.9 l0l

Atlomeys forPlaintilhROB LOWE and SHERYL LOSf,E

ROB LOWE, an individual; andSHERYLLOWE, anindividual,

Plaintiffs,

v9,

tAIrM BOYCE, ar individua! andDOES I through 100, inchxive,

Defcndaffi.

LOS'.,#?PP*

cAsENo. 8C388579COMPLAINT FOR:

(r) BREACII OF WRITTEN CONTRACT(CONfl DENTHLITY AGREEMENT);

{Z', I}EFAFIATION;

(3) BREACA Or DrrIY OF LOYALIY;

(4) BREACH Or flDUCIARY DUTY;

(5) TNTENTTONAL TNFLTCTTON OFEMOTIONAL IIISTRESS;

(o NEGLTGET{T INELICTION OFEMOTIONAL IIISTRESS;

(7' INTENTIONAL fiSgEIirsnnpnrsENrArroN (oMrss$pf g F(B) I\EGLrcENr MrsRgEE$DthiBtd#(ourssrox)i FFof s.,F

\ -6s=s\ \ r \oar)za lJ t;, .8{ .Lo 13 ifigl lco rG

e(i t:4LlF?c,r =

p.1

I

\

\N"a,

\

N"\

G,gi7l

,9l2

\ q{

H

3

4

5

6

7

'8

\9

ioa

Bt2

SUPERIOR COURT OF T}IE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COTJNTY OF LOS ANGELES!rFfrJ

te0ao]tlov)oooFEI7Fofran

z

vz|llFct4EIq&ct

u{

fitJFJaU

95t090_l.DoC

COMPI.AINT

Ffpr 07 2OOB 4:56P1'1

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

l l

12

l3

t4

l5

I6

t7

t8

r920

p.2

O.

"lFllll(?&o

-Fl1e; tn<t iv6z,>Fl st=zz>; f io4&EEA

tPlaintiffs Rob Lowe ('Rob Lowe") and Sheryl Lowc (She;ryl Lowe') (collectively

"Plaintiffs" or lhe "Lowcs'), for $eir complaint againstDefendant Laura Boyoe, an indMdual

("Defendant"); andDOBS I tluough 100, inqlusive, allcge as follows:

NATTJRE O.F IHp ACTTON

1- We livc in an age where informmion can bc distributed worldwide in a matsr of

seconds. That tlpe of access, combin€d with the public's ttrirst for details about the pdvate lives

ofcelebrities, has forccd celebrities to zealously grrard tbeir privacy and the prinacy interests of

their loved ones. This r€quires that those in their employ be rrsnrrorthy and loyal bccause aoy

information about a celebrity from his/lrer anployee - no mau€r how patently false - will be

instanhneously disseminated and (at least initially) believedto be true , As sct forth in this

laursuit, Laura Boyoe, a former employee of the Lowes who was ohargcd with lhe care of thcir

two childruru has made statemenb in violuion of ber prorfse not tq and has made faleo

slatcrneots about Rob Lowe and his wife, Sheryl [,owe. The effect of her betayal reaches far

buyond possibly marring the Lowos' image in the public eyc, tut has already caused a

Semendow amount of barm to the entire family. Thry are all now grappling withthe rcality tbat

someone who was part of their lives for thc last year ol so has bee,n disclosing dctails about her

crnplolmcnt with them aod even more cgregiouslS lying about the oonditions in which she

u'orked. By hcr intentional and malicious condust in complete disregard for the futh or the

confidences entnrstcd to hcr, Dcfendant has caused substantial harrn to thc lowcs, The Lowcs

bring this suit to sct the rocord shaight and to lake a stand agaiost all those who, by beuaying the

confidences of thosc they workfor, celebrity or not, scek to oapitalize on their positions for their

own Enancial benefit anil to tbe emotional and financial dstriment of their cmployers.

JURISDTCTION AND \{ENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiotion ovcr lhis action pursuant to its gencnal jurisdiaion

Powers set forth in dre Constitution of tbe Sate of Califomia and becarue the arnoun in

controv€rsy cxceeds $25,0 00.

3. The Lowes are inficrrned and belierre, and on that basis allegg that vqruo in this

County is pmper because lhe Defendant resides in the Couuty of Los Angeles.gscpo_r,Doc _z-

2l

22

23

24

#zsi l

'ti26r.

it12?

b28ttr.

CPMPLAINT

I

)

3

4

f

6

I

E

9

t0

1l

t2

l3

A

-tFl

El(,&o

- lrl

33TR!464>ltl cl.1 ,

- ,7/2nA

t4

l5

16

17

18

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

i l25t l

i26.i

EztI)i .28tn

n

Ffpr O? 2OOg 4:56PM p.3

THE PARTIES

4, PlaintiffRob Lowe is an individual residing in the County of Sana Barbara. He is

a well-known actor vrho has bad may lead and supporting roles on Elcvision, film and thcahe.

5, PlaintiffSheryl Loua is an individual residing in the County of Santa Barbara.

She is the wife of Rob Lowe and has been a make-up atist for telcvision and filrn.

6. The l,owes malntain their r€sidence in Santa Barbara.

7. Lawa Boyce, an individual, is a fomer employee of the Lourcs, She maintains her

residence in thc County of Ins Angelcs.

8. The Lowes are irfonned and bclieve, and on tbat basis all"ge, pursuant 1o Codo of

Civil Proccdure Section 474rtbat the fiotitiously naurod Defendants sued herein as DOES I

through 100, inclwivc, and cach of them wcrc in some marucr rcsponsible or legally liable for

the actions, evcnls, transactions and circumstanccs alleged berein. The rue ftrmee and capacities

of such fictitiously named Defendants, whether individual, corporate, assooiate, or othenn'ise, arc

pesently unlcnown !o the Lowes. The Lowes will soek leave of this Court to amend this

Complaint to asscfr &e eue lrameo and capacities of such fictitiously nanred Defendants uilren the

same has becn ascertained. For convenience, each reference to Defendants shall include tbe DOE

Defendants, and each of them. Boyce and dre DOE Defendants shatl be collectiv€ly refe,lred to as

Defcndants.

9. Thp Lowes are informcd and bclieve, and on that basis allegc, that Def€ndaols, and

each oftherq mc and were at all times horeinmentioned, the agents, senrants, etnployoes, joint

venhuers, or co-conqpirators of each of the other Defendants, and at all tiross herein nrentioned

were aoting within thc course and scope of said sgmW, employuen" or service in filtherance of

the joint vcntuIe or conspiracy,

ll

tl

tl

/l

958090_t.DOC

COMPLAINT

Ffpr O'7 2OOg 4:56PM p.4

F{J

lTl(fco

-cIJee; ra

JOFO

e>Ft Et

2E6aqE!+€

ct

'I

2

J

4

5

6

7

E

9

l0

il

t2

l3

14

l5

l6

17

l8

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

,r 25t l

126I

Y_ 27

/zei+

$

GENERAL FACKqROUI{D

10. Rob lowe is a 'rcll-known celebrity who has been in the public cye for many

yeaxs. Due to his celcbrity sktus and thc public's seeming unqucnchable thirst for the intirratc

details of all cclebritics, Rob Lowe must - as mwt all celebrities - be ablo to tnrst Ns cmployces

not to disclose anv information or details pertaining to Ns personal lifc bccause such infouration

may be disseminatcd to the global public jn a matter of scconds.

I t. Thus, all employees ofthe Lowes, and in particular those ernployees who work in

6e lowes' household and bave helped to care for the Lowes' childrerl re roquired to sign a

confidendality agreernent as a condition of their gmploFtrent, The confidentiality agEement

provides in relevant pafl that thc employcc:

Srill not givc an/ interviews (whether oral or written) or wrile orprcpar€, or assist inpreparation of any books, articles, priograrns, orotlrcr oral or rnnitten communications dealing with the business orpersonal affairs of the 'Lowe's' and the '[.owE's Parties', norconfirm or deny any infonnadon of any kind (whether rumorpd orknown in any wey) relating to business or personal affairs of rheolov/E's' and the 'Lowe's Parti€s'."

IIpF'ENDAI{T'S pMpLOyMENT WITH TIIE LOWES

12. Defendant worked for the [-owps over the last year or so :ts a f,aflny to their two

sons, Matthcw and Jobn Owen (eolloctively with the Lowes, the 'T-owe Fanrily'). As a condition

of hct employment, Dcfendant signed a confidendality agreement (the "Confidentiality

Agreement') jwt as every other enrployee of thc Lowes has signcd

13, Defendant gcnerdly workod 2-4 days per week for appmximately 8-10 hours,

sometimes rnore and travcled with the [.owea on at loast two family vacations.

14. Over the coutsc of her employment, Defendant developed a close relrtionship with

the Lowe Family and freely talked aboutpersonal and intirnate details about berpersonal life with

Shcryl and other employees and fliends of thc Lowcs,

il

tl

95a090_t.Doc

COMPLAINT

Fpn 07 2OOg 4:56Pt ' t

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

t0

l l

t2

t3

t4

l5

16

t7

l8

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

2t

.P-: J-==_

o<JF:

lq

&o

* l lJ4r '*o

JFz,Ft tuf^z: :>f io=d

PrnA

15, ln or about Novenrler 200?, Defendant failed to repon to work and failed to

reapond to numerous calls and messages on behalf of the Lowes trying to locete her. After the

I,owes caused a missirg person's re,port rc be filed on her behaf, Defendant contactod the Lowes'

through one of their e,oployees urd indicated th* she would not be rcturningto work

i6. Since Defendarrt's sudden departure, the Lowcs have lcarned that Defgndant had,

on scvcral occasions, betrayed their tust anil has also engaged in a scherne to hurr the lowes by

sprcading malicious lies about each of them.

17. Since Defendant abandoned herjob, the lnwes have also been informed and

believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant has been, and is, conspiring with anothq former

employee and third parties to spread malicious lies about the Lovrcs to damage the Lowes'

r€putation.

18. Such conduct, by ono of their trusted employees, has takcn a significurt toll on the

entire family. The Inrvss are fearftl of their safety especially in light of Deftndant's appalent

conte,Ept for the Lowes and her openly admining to lleing involved with violent and physicalty

abttsive people.

FIRST CAUSE OX' ACTION

(Brcech of lYritten Conract -- Confidentirlilv Acrcernent)

19. The Lowes reallege and iucorpomte by reference herein each of the allegations in

Paragnphs I througlt 18, above.

20, Defendant has matcrially breached the Confrdentiality Agreemeut by, among other

&ings, discussing the Lowes' business and pcrsonal affsirs with third parties during and aftcr hcr

e,uployment with the Lowes.

21. The Lowes have fully perfomred all of their duties and obligations in connection

with tlre Confideartiality fureemenq except for those dutics and obligations drat harrc be€o

cxcused or rendered Incapable of performing due to Defc,ndant's breaches of thc Confidentiality

Agreement as wt forth above,

U

-i

g?

a4

gLr

9r8090_t.DOC

COMPLAINT

AJFJ

trlfrl

&o

-q)

;u)<t iv5=>!c EJFrt

27svHna

l

)

?

4

5

6

7

I

9

l0

l l

tzl3

14

l5

t6

l7

l8

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6I

fi

iloa't

Rpr o7 2OOg .1:5?Pl '1 p.6

22, As a direct and foreseeable result of Defondant's breaches of the Confidentiality

Agrcement, the Lowes have suffered general, specific and incideutal damages in an amount lo be

prove,n at trial.

SECOND CAUSD OF ACTION

(I)efemstion)

23, The Lowes reallege and incorporate by refcrence bercin each of the allegaions in

Paragraphs I through Z2,above.

24. The Lowes are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that in thc last few

months, Defendant bas made sevcral falsc and dcfamatory statpments about the lowes,

25, The statements by Defendant against the Lowes arc false aod de&nalory and

Expose the Lowcs to hatcd, conlcmpq ridicule and obloqun and/or cause them to be shuffpd or

avoidod and tend to injure them in their occupations.

26. The lnwes ale informed'and believg and based thercon allege, that Defendant

rnade the false and defrrnatory statements at issue with knowlodge of their fatsity and/or with

rcckless disregad for their tnrth or falsity.

27. As a direot and proximarc result oflhe abovodescribsd conduct by Defcndant, thc

l,owes bave suffercd general and qpecial darmages in an amountto be determined at fial but

believed to be no less than $1,000,000.00, inoluding without lirnitatioq darnagc to the lrcwes'

reputalions, oarEen and standing in the cormmrrnity.

28, The lowts ae informed and beliwg and basod thereon allege, tbat Defendant

actcd with opprcasion, taud and malice ard that, tberefore, her conduct justifies an award of

punitive and exemplary dalages.

THIRD CAUSE OT'ACTION

(Breach of the Dutv of Lovaltv)

29, Tho Lowes reallcgc and incorporate by reference herein each of ttre atlegations in

Paragraphs I through 28, above,

.G95EtD0_t.DOC

COMPLAINT

trrFlrJrr1

- ( )d,o

- lrl'2.6

Ei (A

<itvEz>FE2=i . 'oFgsle

a

I

z

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

l l

t2

l3

l4

l5

l6

t7

l8

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

g2s! t

-r 26I

827

b"

Rpn 07 2OOg 4:5?Pl '1 p.?

30. Deftndant as the nanny and caretaker for the Lowes' children, ourcd a duty to

give the Lowes hEr undivided loyalty and not to take any actions during her employment that

would be detimenlal to the l,owcs or their childrcn. This included a duty of loyatty not lo use or

disclose confidential information, as sct fortb in thc Confidentiality fureemenf obtaincd by and

revpaled to her during the coruse and scope of her emplolme,lrr either for her own personal use

and dealing or to tre detiment of the Lowee.

31. The Lowes are informed and believe, and based thercon allcge, thatDefendant

brcachcd hcr duty of loyatty by tbe acts ard conduot alleged herein, including (1) impermissibly

disclosiug the Lowes' confideNdial inforrration b third parties, and (2) mafting libelous

statomeffs against Rob Lowe and Sheryl Inwe.

32, By virtre of Dcfcndant's breach of her duty of loyalty, the Lowes have been

darnaged jn an amount not yet dctermined, but to bc provcd at bial,

33. The Lowcs arc informed and believe, and hsed theroon allege, that Defendant

knew about her duties and obligations to the lawes, yet intentionalty disreprded thos€

reqPonsibilities in doing the osts dcscribed hercrn, with the intem to cause dctriment to thc Lowcs

and for her own persorral gain and interest. In dolng so, Defendanl acted wirh oppression, fiaud

and malice, and on this basis, the Lowes rcquest that punitive damagcs bc assessed against

Defbndant in an amount to be determined by the hier of fact.

rouRTrr cAUsE oI, acTIoN(Breoch of Fidnciarv Duties)

34, The Lowes reallegc and incorporate by rcference helein each of the allegations in

Paragrapho I through 33, above-

35. At all timcs rclcvant hercto, Dcfcndant owed fiduciary obligations and dutics to

lhe Lowes by virtuc ofher status as a nanny chargod with the care of the Lowes' ohildren. In fris

capacity, she bad acce$t to pcrsonal and privalc inforrnation pcrtaining to every membcr of the

Lowe Farnily-

9tt090_t.Doc

COMPLAINT

I

2

{

4

5

6

7

E

I

l0

l l

T2

t3

l4

t5

t6

t7

l8

I9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

n28

tr_lFI

'AIdo

-El19lca:Al !OFO

1>tu laF>

3EE9aeA

fi

t !i

s7

H

s

Ffpn O? 2OOg 4:58P1' l p.8

36. The Lowes are informed and beliew, and based thereon allege, that Defendanr

broached her fiduciary obligations aod duties owed to the lowes in doing the acls desoribod

herein including (l)'disclosing confidenrtial information of the Lowes to third parties; and (2)

while on-duty as a oanny, rcvcaling intimac and salacious dctails, in profane and wlgar

language, a[egiEdly about her personal life and that oflrer boyfricnds, Such brcaches caused

da:nage to the Lowes.

37. As a pnoximaie result of said breach of fiduciary obligations and duties, the l.owes

have been and will be damaged in an amowt wbich will be provod at trial, but which ec<cceds the

min imurn j urisdl cdonal anrormt.

38. The Lowcs arc informed and belicw, and based thereon allegg that Defendant

knew about her duties and obligations to the Lowps, yet intentionally disregarded those duties and

obligations in doing the acts desuibod herein, with the intont to barm the lnwes and for ho o,np

personat gpin and interest In doing so, Defendant acted with oppressiorg fraud and rnalice, and

on this basis, the Lowes request thst punitive danagcs bc asseseod agoinst Defendant in an

amormtto be dcte,mined atAial.

rIFTrr cAusE oF AgTroN

Ontentlonal In lliction of Emotional Dl stres g)

39. The Lowes rcallege and incorporate by rcferenoe herein eaoh ofthe allesdisas in

Paragraphs I through 38, above.

40. Dnuing and after her emplopnent with the Lowes, Defendant knew that the Lowcs

were partisularly susceptible to any statements thatwould undqmrine theh reputations as good

parents, open-mindcd and progressirrc individuals, faltbfirl as spouses and rospectftrl of othen

becawe of Rob Lorve's cclebrity $anrs.

4l ' Defendast also kncn'that lhc lrwes arc protectivc of their children and strive to

be positive role models for the childra and to havc positlve role models around thc children. She

knew that the Lowes are raising their children in accordance with Sheryl Lowe's Jewish religion

and morals. Shc hcw thar the Lowes umuld be susccptibtc to any conduct that miglrr jeopardize

thc healthn safcty or rnoral rrpbringing of rheir ohildrcn.9JE090-I.DC -8-

COMPLAINT

Ffpr 07 2008 4:58PM p.9

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

l0

tu l l_1E: t.rHr.()

513- lfl-1 fr

s; 14tRvd 157,>Fg 162FEg t7,q al618

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

$25IT

i26il727I

;r 28t.!ttLr

Def€ndant also knew that the Lowes are protcetive of their privacy and personal

space,

43- Defendant's condrrct while on-dufy and offduty is outrageow and beyond the

bounds of decenoy zuch that no reasonable person could be expected to ondure it,

44. Defbndalt's stalernents and conduct are dirtcted at, and trget, eaah of the Lowes'

susceptibilities so as to cause them thc most da.magc, As a result, the Lowes harre suffercd

damagec in that they have been forced to en&rre great mental anguish, divlress, shock,

hurniliatiolU feelings of helplessness as ilrey art under attack.

45. As a direct and proximate rezult of the intentional, malioious, harmful, unlawful

and offensive acts of Defeirdant, the Lowes have sustained swerE and serious inj,rry, including

but not limited to severe emotional disfiess, humiliatio& and mental anggish dl to tttc Lowcs' in

an anrolrrit which will bs provcd at rial, but which exceeds theninimum jurisdictional amount.

46. In doing thc asts described hercin Defendatt sct€d'ilith olryrtssion, fraud and

malice, and on this basis, thc Lowesrequest that punitive damages be asscssed against Defendant

in an amount to be det€rnined by thc tricr of fast.

srxrH cAUsE or AcTroN

lNesllqent Infliction of Dmolionel Distrcss)

47. Tbe Lowps reallcge and incorporate by rcfcrence hercin eacb of tlre allegations in

Paragraphs I tlrough 46, abovc,

48. Defetrdaot owtd a duty to the Lowes pursusnt to (l) her employment relationship

with them whcreby she was charged with the care and supervision of their two yourg sons, drd

(2) the Confidentiality Agreemeot with the Lowes whereby she agreed rnt to discloso any

information about the Lowes to any third puty at any time (cxcept when compelled by legal

process),

49. Defendant knew, or should have knowa, that her failure to exercise due caro in (1)

thc performance of her duties as the narury for the Lowcs' children ard (2) thc performance

prusuaut to the Confidentialily Agreement would cause the Lowes sever€ emotisnal distress.

COMPLAINT

958000_t.Doc

Ia

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

or 1lF.l

dtzo613

_a

3: uinvd l54>Hg 162FEg t7H' r8

t9

20

2l

22

?3

24

$2sui26

' f i |427

izs7_2

s

Ffpn A7 2OOB 4:58PM p. 1o

50. Defendant has heached those duties by (l ) making false and defanatory

statments about the Lowes md (2) disolosingpersonal informarion about thc lnwcs, both mre

and untnre, to third paftigs.

5l, As a poximate result of Defeudant's acts constituting brcachcs of his duties to the

Lowes, the Lowes have sustained sevsro qrd serieus injury, including but not limiled to severe

emotional distress, humiliation, and rnental anguish all to thc LowBs' damage in an amount which

will be proved at trial.

SEVPNTH CAUSE OFACTION

flntentional Misreoresentelion - Omissiou)

52. The Lowts reallcgc and incorporate by refarence trenein eactr of the allegations in

Paragraphs I through 51, above,

53. Dcfcndarq by virtue of her fidrriary ernployment relationship with $e lowes and

frrrther by virtue of her obligation pwsuant to the Confidentiality Agrcement, owed tbc Lowcs a

duty to fi.illy and complaely disclose to tho Loures any and all oonfidential information about the

Lowes that she intendod to discloseto third parties.

54. At all titnes relerrant herein, Defcndant failed to disclose to the lorrres, and

suppressed from the l,owes, the fact that she had violated the Confidentiality Agreenccrt and

discloscd personal information of the Lowcg lo third parties. The supprosdon of thcse facts was

likely to mislead the Lowcs, ancl did in fact mislead the lowps in light of Dcfcndant's continucd

employment with ths Lowes.

55. Defendant's failures ro disclose the information and sup,prcssions of thc

information alleged herein were done with rhe intention to induce the l,owes to oontinuously

employDdendant.

/l

It

ll

il

9s8090-l.Doc

COMPLAINT

I

2 '

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

t0

o' l lJ

i tz{26t3

eF!*; 14

iB r5E}Pg 163iHP I?8- lE

le

20

2L

22

27

24

25

s26ti 21-'ti 2ta

I:ilfl

Rpr 07 2008 4:59P1' l

APn-0?-3008 t2t21

p. l1

P.002

56, Ths towc*, et thc tinres therc failur* to discloec and rupprcssion of faots

occunrd, and at tlrc timc rhc l,owcs took thc rcllons allogcd hcrcin, wcre igrrorant of thc

otict€nss oftfie focte u,hich Defendarl supprctsed and failed to disclosc. lf thc lpwes had becn

awtt of tlre cxlstrnce of rhe facts not discloeed by Defcoder4 thc L,owcs would not hevg as drey

dl4 oontintnd to havo cmpbycd Defsndad, rllowcd Dcfcndant to sarc for theirchildrcn. allowsd

Dcfendant esccn b tlpir homce or rllowcd Dcfcnd*ot ssoers to thcir confidcnrial informarion.

57. As a prorcirnatc rcgult of Defcndant's flauduhnt faifurc to dis{lose facc end hcr

supprersion oflbcrs as allegod krein, the Lnwcs continued !o ernploy DefcnduL continucd to

allow Dsfendant to carc fortheir shildnn, csntinued to dlow Defendant apccss to their homes

rnd continuad to allov/ Defcndant sccstr to thclt ggnfijsfiial infomation by mson of which

Dofbndntt has bccn rmjueily cnriched,

58. Ths afotqnentioncd mnducl of Dvftndant was donc by Defendmt wtth $c

inentlon of causingthe Lower injury rnd war dospicable conducr thal subjcotcd the l,owcs b a

cnrcl and unfust hErdEhip in conscious dirrcgard of their righls. By rcsson of sush condust, the

l,owcs arc cntilled to recover cxcmplary ud punitivo danagcs agninst Defendant

nrcrms cAUsE oF AqTIQN(Ncrlircot lfbrepjrserrilioa -- Ontrsion)

59, Itc l,swss rcallcgo rrd Incorporeto by rcfcrcncc hcrcin caoh of tha allegationc in

Prragrephs I thrrough 58, abovc.

60. DefcndanL fo virtuc of her fiduelary crnploytnart rrlrtionship with thr Lpwcs rnd

furficr by virtue of her obligrtion purusnt to thc Contldcntidity Agrcernent, owod the lowes r

futy to ftlly and oompletely dirclosc to the Inwes rny and all detcmcnts that she intnndcd to

dlsclosc tothid panics aboutfie Inwcc,

61. Dcfcnd&rt brcachcd hor duty b disclose m thc Inwcs thc sutcnrcnts snd cmduct

rtlcgod hcrein.

ll

tl

eIGo_r-DoC .l l-

COMPIA'NT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

E

9

l0

I I

12

r3

l4

15

16

A.tlJIrl

x

- l l l32<=MXa,Ft Er

2E^gYH6A

17

18

l9

20

21

22

23

24

i] 25qi26

n'i zt

'* 28

E

Rpr O? 2OOg 4:59Pl l p.t4

62. At all timcs rclcvant herein, Defendant failed !o disolose o the Lorves, and

suppressed tom the [,owes, the fact tlrat she had violated the Confiderrtiality Agreenent and

discloscd personal informaoon of the Lowes to third parties, The suppression of these facts was

likely to nrislcad thc Lowes, and did in fact mislead the Lowes in light of Ddendant's continucd

employmont with Orc Lorves,

63, Defendant knew, or should havc known, that her faihues to dislose the

information and suppressions of the infonnation allcged berein would induce lhe Loweg to

ernploy Defendaot

64. Ilrc Lowes, at the times these failurcs to disclose and zupp'rcssion of facts

occuned, and at the time the Lowes took thc actions alleged herein, were ignorant of the

existenoc of the facts which Defendent suppressed and failed to disclose. If the Lowes had been

aware of the existence of the facts not discloscd by Deli:ndant, the Lowee would not havg as they

di4 continued to have employcd Dcfcmdant, allowed Defendant to cr€ for rhcir childrpn, allowed

Dcfcndant acoess to their homes or allowed Dcfcndurt aocess to their confidential infonnation,

65. As aproxim& result ofDsfcndant's negligent failure to disclose fasts c alleged

henein, the Iowes continuod to ernploy Defendalrt, continued to allow Defcndant to care for their

children, continucd to allow Defendant aocess to their homes and conrinued to allow Defendant

acccss to their confide,ntial lnformation by rcason of wtridt Defendant has becn wrjustly enrichcd,

66. As a proximate result of said negligeirt faihnes to disclosc, the l,owes have been

and will be damaged in an amount which will bc proved at tial.

67. The aforcmerrtioned condust of Defendant was done by Defendart with the

intention of causing ths Lowes injury and was despiceble @nduct that subjccted the Iowes to a

cruel and wfust hardship in couscious disrcgard of their rigbrs. B5r remon of such couduct, lhe

Lowes arc entitled to recover excmplary and prrritivc damages against Defcndalrt.

il

tl

II

958090_t.DOC

COMPT.AINT

Ff pr 07 2OOg 5: OOPM P. l3

I

2

3

4

)

6

7

8

9

t0

A l lFl

i lzI513

- ,rl

&Z 14J8 15a>HE t63'Eg 179ro518

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

n2sit

"26Y27{zrtitCIs

PRAYER roR RpJLrErWHEREFORE, Plaintitrs pray for judgment against Defendant as follows:

AS TO THE IIIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Bresch of Written Qontr.scr (Co-$tidentialitLAsTeemeg0l

l. For genetal damages, in an amountto be provenr at trial;

2. For costs incurred haein:

AS TO TIIE SECOND CAUSE OF'ACTION

(Pefrmatlon)

3. For general damages, in an amount to be pmven at trial;

4. For punitive damagos in an anourtt apprcpriate to punish Defendant and deter

others from engaging insimilar conduct;

5. For costs incuned hcrein;

AS TO TrIE, THIRD C&iSE Or ACTr9r-{

(Bryach of lhe Duty Of Lovaltv)

6. For general damages, in an amormt to be pwen at tiah

7. For pruritive damages in an amourt appropriate to punish Defendant and deter

o(hers fmm engaging in sinilarconducq

E. For oosts incuned herein;

AS TO TnEFOTJRTII9aUSE OFACTTON

(B rcach o f FiduciarvJ.-Tties\

9- For general damagcs, in an amorrnt to be proven at trial;

10, For punitive damages in an amourt appropriate to prurish Defeodaut and deter

otben from engaging in similar eonduot;

11. For cosb incurrpd herein;

AS TO TIIE FITTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(In lenllonal InfUctiou of Epotional Distre g g)

12, For gcneral darnages, in an aruount to be proveo at trial;

9mo9o_l.Doc -13_

@MPI.AINT

A"

-l-)r'l(tEo

*Fl

33,fRv5=>9ltu

2EEio

-&qlreA

I

n

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

12

l3

74

l5

r6t7

18

l9

20

2t

22

23

24

ij25t l

\26

'427

{ 2s.ei

I

Flpn A7 2OOg 5: 0OPl ' l P. l4

13. For punitive damages in an amount appropriae to punish Defcndant and deter

others from engaging in similar conduct;

14- For costs jncurrcd hcrein;

AS TO THE SDilH CAUSE OJr A-sElON

(Neelieetrt lofliction of Emotional Dbtr$r)

15. For gencral damages, in an mrount to bepmvcn at bial;

16. For punitive &-ages in an amount appropriateto punish Defendant and deter

others from eagaging in similar conducq

17. Por costs incurrej heoein;

AS TO TIIE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

flntentionsl Misrenreeenlrtion -- Omlsslon)

18. For general danages, in an amount to be proven at fial;

19. For pwritivc daurages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and daer

others from cngaging in similar conduct;

20. Forcosts insuned he.tein;

AS TO TrrE EIGHTTI CAUSE OF.ACIION

(Ncsliqent Misrepresenjation - Opisg.io4)

21. For ge,neral darnages, in an arnount to bcproven at trial;

22. For punitivc darnages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and deter

otherc fiorn engaging in similarconduct;

23. For costs ing.ured herEin;

ll

il

il

/l

ll

/l

9tBo9Q_t.DOC

COMPI"AINT

I

2

5

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

1l

l2

l3

l4

l5

t6

t7

l8

l9

20

2l

?2

23

24

25

26

2t

28

F.J,ltrt(,/o

-El7)ox- (,

<xv5a>f le3FHV14 tog

A

!-.rg

ilT

iiL!

/!

tlt.fr

Hpn ( ]7 2OO8 5:OOP|.1

DATED: April7,2008

AS TO ALL CAUSES OF,A.CTrON

For any all sush furthsr elief as the Court mey deem just and proper.

P. l5

I5E090_t.DOC

COMPI.AINT