Lawsuit against Estate of Jean-Luc Brunel

1 Law Offices of Isaac Toveg 2 ||1sase Toveg SBN 269729 Siero Court of Calor 2600 W Olive Ave 5° floor Coin of Los Angeles 3 || Burbank ca 91505 REE 818-333-5202 Executive OtfceiClek of hurt, 4 || isasctoevg@aol.com By R. Perez, Deputy Clerk || Avomey for lini Kramer o INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE JEAN Luc BRUNEL OF LOS ANGELES. 7 4ST Cv0000 EsSicA KRAMER 8 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5. 9 ||[Estate of JEAN Luc BRUNEL, AND 1. NEGLIGENCE (JEAN LUC BRUNEL) Dos 1-50; 2. NEGLIGENCE (DOES 1 THROUGH 10 Defendant s0) 3. SEXUAL ASSAULT 1 4. SEXUAL BATTERY 5. SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL 12 CODES1.9) 6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 13 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 7. GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL CODE 14 524) 8. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF 15 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 17 yg [Pini Jessica Kramer (Plan), by and through undersigned counsel brings his complaint 1g |[#ins The site of ean Luc Brunel ("Jean Luc Brunet) and DOES through 50 inclusive 0 [cotctivls. DEFENDANTS") and segs as follows: INTRODUCTION 21 pp || This ation ariss from sexual assault, battery, and abuse from Jean Lue Brunl in New York, L.A. and Canada. Plaintiff, was sexually abused and assaulted by Jean Luc Brunel a modeling 23 24 COMPLAINT 25 26 27  : agent at his L.A. , Ca. and Canada. This action alleges physical, psychological, and emotional [nurs suffered as. result of sexual assault and abuse. 4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES ||1-Avall relevant times herein, Jean Lue Brunel, a Modeling agent operated out of Pars, France, |New Yor and Canada. , PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE g || Plaiiffis a citizen and resident ofthe State of Califonia and at the time of lin this g |[Comaint is under th age of forty (40) years old. lai was eighteen (19) years of age a he 10 [ime of the sexual abuse, sexual assault alleged herein. Plaintiff brings tis Complaint using a 41 |[poeudonsm because ofthe sensitive nature of the allegations of sexual abuse inthe Complain, 4 ||hichis a mater ofthe utmost intimacy. Plan ears embarrassment and further psychologic 1 || damage if Plains identity as a victim of sexual abuse were to become publicly known 1a || Plains identi will be made Known t the Defendants upon service of the Summons and 15 || Complaint 1 | Defendant Jean Luc Brunel heeinafe referred t0 as "Jan’) i located a Paris and Canad. 47 || The tre names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or others, of 4g ||Pefendant DOES 1 through 50, ars unknown t Plain, who therefor sues suid Defendants by yg [ch fetious names. Each of the DEFENDANTS designated herein as DOES 1 trough 50 is pp | Peeieenty intentionally, or otherwise egaty responsible in some manner for the allegations pq [referenced herein Painif will ask lave of Court to amend this Complaint o show their names pp || capacities when the name have been ascertained. 23 24 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : 5. Each DEFENDANT Does | to 50 i the agent, servant, and/or employee of other 3 [DEFENDANTS and cach DEFENDANT acted within the course and scape of his, he, ors | [Futhorit as am agent servant, and/or employee of the other DEFENDANTS. || DEFENDANTS, and cach of them, ar individuals, corporations, partnerships andor ther |[eniie that engaged in joined in, andor conspired with the her wrongdoers in caring out the [tortious and unlawful activities described in this Complaint. g [7 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction ofthis action, as the amount in controversy exceeds o|[s2500- 40 | Persons jurisdiction lis over DEFENDANTS. “" FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS BY PLAINTIFF 4p || 9 Defendant dean was a modeling agent and had offices in Paris, France, New York and 13 Canada who had employees to seek out models or young girls who want to work as 1a models to hire or promise to hire for lucrative jobs as models . However, these girls 15 including the plaintiff were drugged, sexually assaulted, false imprisonment and sexually a abused instead. + 47 || 10: Plain Kramer was over 18 years of age when she was engaged in modeling in New 18 York and approached by Jean and his employees. Jean and his employees solicited her 5 and on one occasion drove her to Canada where she stayed at a home whom she was told 2 was owned by Jean. She could not leave and there were numerous attempts of offensive 21 touching, sexually assaults including groping, as the men tried unsuccessfully to arouse 2 her by providing her with drugs in which she did not ingest. || 11 AR a fw days of being falsely imprisoned at the home, she woke and realized that 2 Jean and his employees were getting into their cars leaving . She immediately then 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : decided to try and escape thru a window and was successful as she hitched a ride back to 3 New York 4 NATURE OF CONDUCT ALLEGED g || 12 This action aleges physical. psychological, and emotional injuries suffered a a esl [of conduct hat would onsite” sexual assault as defined in California Code of Civil [Procedure section 1708.5; or any prior laws of the State of California of similar eect at the time| || he act was commited. lain” Kramer has suffered both special and general damages. The g |[General damages include but not limited to Physical pain, mental suffering, Inconenince, loss 10 | nioyment of te Emotional distress, depression, Anxiety, fear, humilion, False 41 [Imprisonment and ack o ice. 12 13 BASIS FOR LIABILITY 1a ||13 DEFENDANTS are vicariously ible forthe acts and/or omissions of themselves. 4 || 14 The California legislature declared is intent "that nothing in the decision of the California 4 [| Cour of Appeal in County of Los Angeles . Superior Court of Los Angeles: Rel Party in 47 ||1terst Teel R. (2002) 102 Cal App th 627, shall be held to change th standards of lability yg ||P immunity fo injuries ton protctive custody that existed prio to tha decision.” Cal. Welf 1g [| & mt Code 1600.16). 2 DEFENDANT Jean Luc Brunel VICARIOUS LIABILITY 1 || 15 Under doctrine of respondent superior, Defendant Jean Luc Brunel is vicariously liable pp || fortes committed by DOES 1 through 50 within the scope of their employment. [Under a || Gove C8152, the respondent superior dociine plies o public and private employers in a || private on ligation) 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : 16. Defendant Jean Luc Brunel is liable for all acts and / or omissions to act by DOES 1 3 through 50 in their course and scope of employment, as Defendant Jean Luc Brunel’s 4 employees committed these acts and misused their authority by sexually abusing 5 PLAINTIFF whom they had utilized for volunteer services in Defendant Jean Luc 6 Brunel. See generally Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 202. , FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 8 Negligence o (Against Defendant Jean Luc Brunel) 10 [17 Pratt repeats and rallges Paragraphs 1 through 16 above 41 ||18 Defendant Jean Luc Brune acts andor omissions, a st forth above, onsite negligence 12 ||19- Defendant Jan Luc Brune was negligent 1 ||PO- Defendant Jean Luc Brunel owed a duty of cae o Plain 1a ||P Defendant Jean Luc Brune breached the duty of are owed to Phainti 4 ||P Defendant Jean Luc Brunet acts, conduct, and omissions showed a reckless or willful 1 | isrgand forthe safety and well-being of lan. 47 ||P Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant Jean Lue Brunel's negligent acts andlor 4g || omissions. as st forth above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer conomic damages, yg [1nd severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical nurs, shame, humilion, pp [nd the inability to lad a normal ie 21 2 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Negligence 2 (Against Defendant DOES 1 through 50) 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : 24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 23 above. [25 Defendant DOES 1 through 50 acs andlor omissions, as st forth above, constitute 4 |[restience ||P6- Defendant DOES 1 through 50 were negligent. |[27- Defendant DOES 1 through 50 owed a duty of car o Paintit [28 Defendant DOES 1 through 50 breached the duty of care owed o Phan g [29 Defendant DOES 1 through 50 filed 0 take reasonable steps or 0 implement g |[30- Defendant DOES through 50s acs, conduct and omissions showed reckless or willful 10 | isrgand forthe safety and well-being of Plainiff and other . 44 |[31 As dirt and proximate est of Defendant DOES 1 through 50 negligent acts 1 || nor missions, us se forth above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues (0 suffer economic 1 || damages, and severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical inuris, shame, 1a ||Pumilistion, and the nabiliy to lead a normal if. 15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION a Sexual Assault in violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1708.5 17 (Against all Defendants and Does 1-50) 1g ||P: PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference the allegations st forth above as though fully set ford 1g [Pern pp [33 Defendants and agents and / or employees in commiting the acts herein alleged intended to pq | blect PLAINTIFF t0 sexual abuse and molestation while PLAINTIFF was at Defendant Jean pp | ue Brunet s office facility and at a home in Canada, Jean Luc Brunel, all while acting i the pg | [couse and scope oftheir agency employment 24 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : 34. In s0 doing, Defendants and agents and / or employees intended to cause harmful or [offensive contact with PLAINTIFF'S persons, and / o intended to put PLAINTIFF in imminent | [Fpprehension of such contact. Defendants and agents and or employees placed PLAINTIFF in |[Fmminent apprehension of harm or offensive contact, and PLAINTIFF actualy and reasonab | [Petre hat Defendants and agents and or employes had he abiliy to make harmful or [offensive contact with PLAINTIFF'S person. PLAINTIFF did not consent to Defendants and g [ents and or employees intended harmful o offensive contact with PLAINTIFF'S person, or g |[their intent to place PLAINTIEE in imminent apprehension of such contact 10 [35 n commiting the acs herein alleged, Defendants and agents and or employees violated the 41. |[PLATNTIFFS right, pursuant to California ivi Code § 43 of protection from bodily restraint 1 ||o harm and rom personal insult 4 ||P6: In commiting the ats herein alleged, Defendants and agents and or employees violated 1a ||Peir duty. pursuant 0 California Civil Code § 1708, 0 abstain from injuring the persons of the 15 || PLAINTIFF or infinging upon PLAINTIFF'S rights. 4 [37 dirt and proximate est ofthe conduct of Defendants, individual only, and or 47 ||peverally. PLAINTIE sustained severe emotional disress and physica pin, mational anguish, yg || Fs viety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional juris, damages 1g [both economic and noncconomic), and permanent disailsy. in the past, present, and futur. Th pp ||ries suffered by PLAINTIFF ar substantial, continuing, and permanent. pq || PLAINTIFF is entided to damages in an amount o be determined by proof at tial pp [35 Defendants and agents and / or employees’ acts also constitute conduct intended by them to yg | [cause inury to PLAINTIFF and despicable, malicious, and / or oppressive conduct hat scars pg [on vith willl and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others in dirt violtion of 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : California Civil Code § 3294, subdivision (a). PLAINTIFF is, therefore, entitled to punitive [damages against Defendants and cach of them in an amount 0 be determined by proof at rial. 4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 SEXUAL BATTERY (CIVIL CODE § 1708.5) 6 (Against All Defendants and DOES 1-50) [39 PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference th allegations set forth above as though fll st for g [herein g |[40- Avail times herein referenced, Defendants and agents and or employees were amployees of 10 || Defendant Jean Luc Brunet and or other entities to be shown according to proof, during which 41 [ime DOES 1 through 50 were acting within the scope of her agency and employment 4 ||¢1- During PLAINTIFF'S participation at Defendant Jean Luc Brunel office and one of is 4 ||Pomes in Canada. Defendants and agents and / or employees intentionally, recklessly, and 1a ||Pantonly did acts which were intended to and did, result in harmful and offensive contact with 4 ||Fimate parts ofthe PLAINTIEF'S person during PLAINTIFF'S time residing in the office and 4 home in which is employees state that ean owned in Canada of Defendant Jean Luc Brunel 47 ||Pean Lu Brunel whi they aced in the course and scope oftheir agency/employment with 1g ||Pefendant Jean Luc Brunel fg | Further PLAINTIFF did not consent to the harmful contact with PLAINTIFF'S perpetrator 0 [3A a result of Defendants and agents and/or employees’ complete contol the PLAINTIFF, pq. | valnerabiliy, by mental, physical and emotional state, PLAINTIFF did nt, and could nt, pp [ive meaningful consent o such acts. yg || Defendants and agents and. o employees conduct was a direct and prosimate cause of pg [rou injuries to PLAINTIFF, and PLAINTIFF is enied to damages in an amount 0 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : be determined by proof at trial [#5 Defendants and agents and / or employees’ acts also constitute conduct intended by | [them to cause inury to PLAINTIFF and despicable, malicious, and / or oppressive conduct that || cared on with wilful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others n dirt |[Vitation of California Civil Code § 3294, subdivision u) PLAINTIFF i, therefore, tiled 0 [punitive damages against Defendants and cach of them in an amount © be determined by proof g [iat o FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION a SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL CODE § 51.9) “" (Against All Defendants and DOES 1-50) 12 ||#6: PLAINTIFF re-allcges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation 1 || contained above a though fully st forth and brought inthis cause of action. 14 ||#7- During PLAINTIFF commitment a Defendant Jean Lue Brunel Defendants and agents an 45 ||/ or employees and PLAINTIFF maintained special relationship ovr the PLAINTIFF'S well 1 | eine and safety such that Defendants and agents and / or employees, and each of them, 47 ||providing office care for and volunteer work for such as PLAINTIFF in loco parenis, much 4g || a teacher would in an academic situation and/or other qualified institutions for , thus yo | cablishing a confidential, fiduciary, and special relationship with PLAINTIFF. 0 [#5 Defendants and agents and / or employees, and cach of them a agents and employes of pq [ch other, intenionall, recklessly, and wantonly made sexual advances, or engaged in other pp |condut ofa sexual nature, or of a hostile ature bascd on gender, including, but no limited to, pg [exon suggestions, demands, and orders, that was unwelcome and pervasive or severe pg | olciations that was unwelcomed by PLAINTIFF. 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : 49. Said conduct of intentional, reckless, and wanton sexual advances or other conduct of a semua tur bs upon ged was shore, ii nd approved by Defendant Jean [ve rome osc upon thie acs and cisions cts thei fre to propery ie, nine contel and suprvis, DOES 1 through 50. The incidents of abuse ook place while |[PLAINTIFF was under the exclusive and direct office, home, supervision, cae, an diecion of | [Defendant sean Luc Brunel is agents and or employees 8 50. PLAINTIFF was imprisoned with THE ABUSER who had direct access and authority of || as PLAINTIFF based on Hicrarchy ming PLAINTIFF more vulnerable to physica and 10 | emotional attacks on PLAINTIFF'S state of being affecting PLAINTIFF'S mental health 11 | [especialy due 0 PLAINTIFFS age and desclopment 1 [31 Defendants and agents and or employees’ conduct was a breach of ther duties to 13 PLAINTIFF, and the direct and proximate cause of the harms PLAINTIFF suffered according to 14 [Proof 15 || 72 Defindans and agents and or employees acts ho onsite conduct intended bythe 0 [cus oy © PLAINTIFF and despicable, malicious, and or oppressive conduct ha is cri 17 on with willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others in direct violation of 18 California Civil Code § 3294, subdivision (a). PLAINTIFF is, therefore, entitled to punitive [damages against Defendants and ach of them in an amount o be determined by proof a il 2 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 2 (Against All Defendants and Does 1 Through 50) pp || PLAINTIFF recallges and incorporates by reference herein ach and every allegation pg |[comtained above as though fully set forth and brought in his cause of action. 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : 54. At the time of the incidents described above, Defendants and agents and / or || mployees' conduct as allged herein was beyond the bounds of decency accepted within society | [enc vs inion, autageous, malicious, and commited for the pupose of causing ||PLAINTIFF to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish. and o severe physical and | [or emotional distress o done in reckless disregard ofthe probability of causing PLAINTIFF to || utter humiiation, embarrassment, meal anguish, and/or severe physical and / or emotional g [distress g ||: Defendants and agents an. o employes and cach of them, were in positon of 10 [thority rust, influence, and persuasion over PLAINTIFF and responsible for maintaining a 41 [speciation 1 ||56: THE PERPETRATOR and DOES 1 through S0' abuse of PLAINTIFF was an abuse oftheir 43 ||Puhorit as an agent and / or employee of Defendants and agents and or employees and 1a ||performed while in the course and scope of thir employment. 45 || PLAINTIFFS rust in Defendants and agents and / o employees for PLAINTIFF'S safety 4 [| ¢n¢ wellbeing med to fear and nimidation by virtue of DOES 1 through 50 and Defendants 47 || agents and or employees’ wrongful conduct 1g ||: PLAINTIFF contends said misconduct was authorized, aifed, adopted and/or approved of 1g ||P Defendants and agents and or employees pp [3% Defendants and agents and / or employees conduct as alleged her was beyond the bounds pq [oF decency accepted within society and was intentional, outrageous, malicious, nd commited pp [forthe purpose of causing PLAINTIEF to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, pg | [en or severe physical and o emrional distress, or done n reckless disregard of he 24 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : probability of causing PLAINTIFF to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, and / 3 [or severe physical and/or motional distress 5 |[604s a direct and provimate result of the conduct as herein alleged, PLAINTIFF has suffered | ert mental pain. embarrassment, humiliation, distress, anguish, and suffering, all her ||damases nan amount according to proof a il. [61 Defendants and agents and / or employees’ conduct described herein was intentional and g || maticious and done for the purpose of causing, o with the substantial certainty that such conduct g | [ould cause PLAINTIFF to suffer humiliaon, mental anguish, and emotional and physic 10 [dss 41.62 Defendants and agents and or employees acted willy and maliciously with he nent to 1 ||Parm PLAINTIFF, and in conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF'S rights, so as (0 constitute malice 4 || or oppression under Califomia Civil Code § 3294 thereby ening them to punitive 1a || damages according to proof. 15 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION a GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL CODE § 52.4) 17 (Against Defendant DOES 1 through 50) 1g || PLAINTIFF realcges and incorporates by reference herein cach and every allegation yg [contained bove as though fully st forth and brought in this cause of action 0 [4 Defendant through acts and or omissions committed sexual abuse and gender violence on pq || PLAINTIFF based, in part, on PLAINTIFF'S gender that was both a physical intrusion and / or pp [Physical invasion of a sexual nature under cocrive conditions. pg ||: The alleged wrongful and iit conduct was authorized: rifed and / or adopied by pg || Pendant Jean Luc Brunel's actions and / or omissions to act by way ofits negligent hiring, 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : supervision, and training of DOES 1 through 50. 3 [06-A a dirct and proximate result ofthe sexual misconduct, PLAINTIFF is entitled t0 actual || damasss, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attomeys ess, injunctive elie, any || combination of those, o any other appropriate relief and costs pursuant 0 California Civil Code |[§524 aginst all Defendants , EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 9 (Plaintiff against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 50) 10 67 PLAINTIFF realtcges and incorporates into this cause of action cach and every paragraph of 41 [is Comptaine 1 ||6%: The employees and or agents of Defendant have a special relationship, which imposes upon 4 || thm an affimative duty 10 take reasonable steps to protet is citizens from 1a ||Feasonably forescable iss of harm. 15 ||69- PLAINTIFF allges that at al times mentioned herein, DOES 1 though SO wer an agent 4g |[¢nd employee of Defendant Jean Luc Brunel inclusive, and DOES | through 50 performed the 47 ||pts herein whit in the course and scope of thei agency and employment at the time of the 1g ||Pobice incident yg ||70- Moreover, PLAINTIFF contends sid misconduct was authorized ratified, adopted and / or 0 | PProved of by Defendants and agents and or cnployees, and that lilt flows from their 1 [employment with Defendant Jan Luc Brunel while acting in the course and scope of pp |[cmploymentas it: 1) may prevent recurrence of similar tortious conduct because i crates a yg | [prone incentive for vigilance by those ina position to guard substantially against the xil 0 be pg [Prevented 2 would give greater assurance of compensation othe victim and 3) would spread 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  : the risk of loss among the beneficiaries of the enterprise because of the substantial benefits that [he community derives rom th lawful exercise of power. | [71 DOES 1 through 50 were ina position of authority, rust, influence, and persuasion over || PLAINTIFF. THE ABUSERS and DOES 1 through 50 were an agent of Defendant Jean Luc | [Brome responsive for maintaining th special relationship with the commit including, but [72 DOES 1 through 50's sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF and other victims of Defendant g || Yan Luc Brunel abuse was therefor alo a very abuse of authority as agents of Defendant Jean g | [Lue Bronet 40 [73 The employees and or agents of Defendants breached ther duty to protect ts citizens, 41 |nctuding PLAINTIFF, from reasonably foreseeable iss of sexual abuse when fled t0 use 4 ||Fesonable car in hiring and / or supervising and/or trining ts employees and or agents rom 13 ||Fsonably foreseeable iss of sexual abuse and touching and detect and report reasonable 1a ||Pisicion of sexual abuse and improper touching. 4 ||7# Defendants and agents and or employees” employees and / or agents knew and o should |v Known thats conduct as described inthis complaint was likely to cause ts citizens, 47 || cluding PLAINTIEF, 0 suffer severe emotional disires. 4g ||75: As a dirt and proximate result of tis negligent conduct, PLAINTIFF suffered serious yg [emotions stress, anxicy. discomfort and ear for PLAINTIFF'S health and safety and wil pp [continue to suffer aid damages for an unknown period in amounts to be proved a tia 21 2 PRAYER FOR RELIEF as to Jean Luc Brunel pg | [WHEREFORE lain respectfully requests th following ele: a || General damages in an amount o be shown according to proof at th time of ial; 2 COMPLAINT 26 27  1 || 2 Special damages including medical and pyehologica care expenses in a amount 0 | [Be shown according to proof at the ime of ial; || 3 Treble damages, pursuant to CCP § 340.10): 5 4. Costs of suit, and || Sth otherand further relict as this Court deems just and proper 7 8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF as to DOES 1 through 50 g ||HEREFORE, Plains respectfully requests he following reli 10 1. General damages in an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of trial; “ 2. Special damages including medical and psychological care expenses in an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of trial; 12 lop 13 3. Treble damages, pursuant to CCP § 340.1(b); 4. Punitive damages; 14 ® 5. Costs of suit: and 15 Jo || 6 Such other and futher relia his Court des just and prope. 17 18 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL yg | [Pini hereby demands jury ial in his action. 20 21 2 DATED: December 28 2023 LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC TOVEG PLC ISAAC TOVEG 23 ISAAC TOVEG 24 compLANT 25 26 27  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 compLANT 2 27