lNED ON 712812008

www.courthousenews.com

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
X Index No.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

1 MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC : Purchased:

Plaintiff, : SUMMONS

vs *

VIVIEN WANG and DNA MODEL

e
MANAGEMENT LLC ,

ic
Defendants. X

rv
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT:

Se
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this

action and to file a c o p y of your answer with the Supreme Court

s
ew
of the State of New Y o r k , at the office at 60 Centre Street, New

York, New York 10007, a n d to serve a copy of your answer, or, if

N

t h e complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice

se

of appearance on the attorneys for the Plaintiff within 20 days

after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of

ou

service (or within 30 days after service is complete if this

rth

summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of

ou

New York). In case of your' failure to appear or answer,

QU b ' y - .default for the relief

C

-,
.
'*.

1
 www.courthousenews.com

r.
D a t e d : July 24, 2008
New York, New York

Kenneth Sussrnane
MCCUE SUSSMANE & ZAPFEL, P . C .
Attorneys for Plaintiff
521 Fifth Avenue
New Y o r k , New York 10175
(212) 931-5500

Defendants Addresses:
Vivien Wang
520 Broadway, l l t h F1.
New York, New Y o r k 10012

DNA Model Management

520 Broadway, 1lfhF1.
New York, New York 10012

2
 www.courthousenews.com

SUPREME COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

1 MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC, :Index No. 08/

Plaintiff, : VERIFIED
:COMPLAINT
- against -

VIVIEN WANG, and DNA MODEL MANAGEMENT, :

LLC I

Defendants.

Plaintiff 1 Model Management, LLC, by its

attorneys, McCue Sussmane & Zapfel, P.C., for its Complaint

herein alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff 1 Model Management, LLC

(“Plaintiff”) is a New Y o r k limited liability company which

maintains its principal place of business at 42 Bond

Street, in the City, County and State of New York.

2. Defendant Vivien Wang (“Wang”) is an

individual residing in the City and State of New Y o r k .

3. Defendant DNA Model Management LLC is a New

York limited liability company which maintains its

principal place of business at 520 Broadway, l l t h Floor, in

the City, County and State of New York.

 www.courthousenews.com

4. Plaintiff is one of the leading modeling

management companies in the United States and is engaged in

the representation of only exceptionally talented models

providing high fashion modeling services to the fashion and

entertainment industries.

5. Models represented by plaintiff are among

the most sought after in the industry as evidenced by the

extremely high caliber of bookings. They have graced the

covers of every major fashion magazine, such as Vogue,

Cosmopolitan, E l l e and Glamour among many others. They

have appeared as the faces for media campaigns for

virtually every premier luxury brand.

6. Defendant DNA is one of the leading modeling

management companies in the United States.

7. Plaintiff employed defendant Wang from

August 16, 2004 through May 1, 2008. She commenced her

employment as the assistant to the President of plaintiff

and was promoted to the position of model manager or

booker. Defendant Wang had full access to all confidential

and proprietary information and trade secrets of plaintiff.

8. Defendant Wang’s employment with plaintiff

positioned her in a situation of trust and confidence with

plaintiff’s models. Defendant Wang performed unique

services utilizing the resources at her disposal to enhance

2
 www.courthousenews.com

her relationship with plaintiff's models and to develop a

close working relationship with such models.

9. On April 30, 2008, plaintiff and defendant

Wang entered into the agreement which is attached hereto as

Exhibit A (the "Wang Agreement") in connection with the

voluntary resignation by Wang of her position with

plaintiff. Plaintiff agreed to pay to defendant Wang two

months severance pay, and to continue to pay the premiums

for health insurance coverage for two months. In

consideration f o r such payments, defendant Wang agreed that

for a period of one year, Wang shall not directly or

indirectly solicit or represent, or otherwise be actively

involved with any change of management of, any model

managed by the Company at the time of her termination or at

any time during the six (6) month period preceding such

date.

10. On May 1, 2008 defendant Wang resigned her

position with plaintiff.

11. On or about June 2008, defendant Wang

commenced employment with defendant DNA.

12. As an employee of DNA, Wang breached the

Wang Agreement by directly or indirectly, soliciting,

representing, and otherwise being actively involved with

the change of management of at least one model managed by

3
 www.courthousenews.com

plaintiff at the time of her termination. An important

model represented by plaintiff, Deni.sa Dvorakova, has

notified plaintiff that she intends to terminate

representation by plaintiff and commence representation by

defendant DNA.

13. Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in the

protection against defendants' competitive use of model

relationships which plaintiff enabled Wang to acquire

through her direct performance of substantive management

services for plaintiff's models during the course of her

employment.

14. There are no models represented by plaintiff

who came to plaintiff solely to avail themselves of the

services of defendant Wang or as the result of her

independent recruitment efforts, which plaintiff neither

subsidized nor otherwise financially supported.

15. Defendant Wang disclosed to DNA plaintiff's

confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets

of plaintiff.

16, The contact information of the models

represented by plaintiff and the identity and contact

information of the important figures in their lives and

careers, including family, attorney, accountant, business

manager or other advisors, are among plaintiff's most

4
 www.courthousenews.com

crucial trade secrets. This information is never available

to the public. Important designers, photographer,

advertising agency or other persons in the fashion industry

wishing to contact a model, can contact the model only

through her agency.

17. Information regarding models’ contracts with

plaintiff is not publicly available, including the

existence of a contract, the date the contract expires, the

commission rate the model pays to plaintiff and the

territory in which plaintiff is entitled to represent the

Model. The information would prove invaluable to any

competitor seeking an o p p o r t u n e time window in which to

solicit a model whose contract is expiring and to offer a

commission rate lower than the rate paid to plaintiff.

Information regarding differing commission rates could also

be used to breed discontent among plaintiff’s models.

18. Information regarding models relationships

with other agencies around the world is not publicly

available, particularly any model agency or scouting agency

(called a “Mother Agency”) that may have referred a model

to plaintiff, the right of the Mother Agency to terminate

the representation of the model by plaintiff, and the

compensation paid to the Mother Agency by plaintiff.

5
 www.courthousenews.com

19. While models’ ma ga zine covers and

prestigious editorial photographs are used in h e r portfolio

and posted on websites to promote her career, photographs

of models’ work in advertisements or catalogues are rarely

used to promote a model. Information regarding the vast

majority of a model’s work, including information regarding

her earnings, contractual commitments to clients as well as

the myriad of potential clients who have met the model

though castings, go-sees and other appointments, and to

whom her materials have been presented, is not available to

the public. All of such information is invaluable to an

agency seeking to solicit a model represented by plaintiff

by allowing the competitor to assure the model that her

representation will continue with the benefit of the

information amassed by plaintiff.

20. Plaintiff’s scouting practices and

relationships are not public information, including the

persons and companies around the world who refer new models

to plaintiff.

21. Defendant Wang utilized plaintiff’s

confidential information and trade secrets to solicit

models to change management from plaintiff to defendant

DNA.

6
 www.courthousenews.com

22. Plaintiff’s trade secrets give plaintiff an

opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors.

23. Plaintiff maintains strict secrecy with

respect to its trade secrets and confidential and

proprietary information, which are known only to employees

of plaintiff, and are not disclosed to the public.

24. Plaintiff’s trade secrets are not known

outside of the business of plaintiff. Plaintiff’s trade

secrets are not available from any public source and are

not public knowledge.

25. Plaintiff requires employees such as

defendant Wang to enter into agreements with

nonsolicitation provisions to protect plaintiff against

disclosure of its trade secrets or use of its trade secrets

by competitors.

26. Plaintiff has expended considerable time and

money to develop its trade secrets and such trade secrets

cannot be acquired or duplicated by others without hiring

an employee of plaintiff who would misappropriate

plaintiff’s trade secrets.

27. As a result of defendant Wang’s position

with plaintiff, and the resources and confidential

information and trade secrets made available to defendant

Wang by plaintiff for the performance of her duties, the

7
 www.courthousenews.com

damages that will be sustained by plaintiff as a result of

the breach of the Wang Agreement could be irreparable and

go far beyond mere financial damages, since the loss of

models which have been scouted, developed and positioned by

plaintiff using plaintiff's resources and unique know-how

would adversely affect plaintiff's reputation, prestige and

standing in the industry.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of C o n t r a c t )
Against D e f e n d a n t Wang

28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and

every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 as if

fully set forth h e r e i n .

29. Defendant breached t h e Wang Agreement.

30. Plaintiff delivered to defendant Wang notice

of breach of the Wang Agreement and demanded that such

breach cease. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction

restraining a d enjoining defendant Wang until May 1,

2009, from, either directly or indirectly, whether as a

principal, employee, stockholder, partner, member,

director, officer, manager, consultant, agent,

representative, or otherwise, from soliciting or

representing, or otherwise being actively involved with any

change of management of, any model managed by plaintiff on

8
 www.courthousenews.com

May 1, 2008 or at any time during the s i x month period

preceding such date.

31. Plaintiff has suffered damages as the

result of the breach of contract by defendant in an amount

to be proven at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Tortious Interference w i t h Contract)
Against Defendant DNA

32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and

every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 31

hereof as if fully set forth herein.

33. The Wang Agreement is a valid contract

between the plaintiff and defendant Wang.

34. Defendant DNA had knowledge of the Wang

Agreement

35. Defendant DNA intentional procured the

breach of the Wang Agreement by defendant Wang without any

justification.

36. Defendant Wang breached the Wang Agreement.

37. Plaintiff suffered damages as the result of

the breach of the Wang Agreement by defendant Wang and as

the result of the interference with the Wang Agreement by

defendant DNA in an amount to be p r o v e n at trial.

 www.courthousenews.com

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets)
Against Both Defendants

38, Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and

every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 37

hereof as if fully set forth herein.

39. Defendants have misappropriated plaintiff’s

trade secrets.

40. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent

injunction restraining and enjoining defendants from,

either directly or indirectly, whether as a principal,

employee, stockholder, partner, member, director, officer,

manager, consultant, agent, representative, or otherwise,

disclosing or using any information of a confidential

nature which is not public information relating to

plaintiff or any of its affiliates, employees, or models.

41. Plaintiff has incurred damages in an amount

to be proven at trial.

FOUIRTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Competition)
Against Both Defendants

42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and

every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 41

hereof as if fully set forth herein.

10
 www.courthousenews.com

43. Defendants misappropriated and exploited

confidential information belonging to plaintiff in abuse of

defendant Wang's relationship of trust.

44. The unfair competition by defendants has

resulted in damages to plaintiff in an amount to be proven

at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that

judgment be granted a s follows:

A. On the first cause of action, granting an

injunction restraining and enjoining defendant Wang until

May 1, 2009, from, either directly or indirectly, whether

as a principal, employee, stockholder, partner, member,

director, officer, manager, consultant, agent,

representative, or otherwise, soliciting or representing,

or otherwise being actively involved with any change of

management of, any model managed by plaintiff on May 1,

2008 or at any time during the six month period preceding

such date, and awarding damages against defendant Wang in

an amount to be proven at trial.

B. On the second cause of action, awarding

damages against defendant DNA in an amount to be proven at

trial.

11
 www.courthousenews.com

C. On the third cause of action granting a

permanent injunction restraining and enjoining defendants

from, either directly or indirectly, whether as a

principal, e m p l o y e e , stockholder, partner, member,

director, officer, manager, consultant, agent,

representative, or otherwise, disclosing or using any

information of a confidential nature which is not public

information relating to plaintiff or any of its affiliates,

employees, or models; and awarding damages against

defendants in an amount to be proven at trial.

D. Awarding damages on the fourth cause of

action against defendants in an amount to be p r o v e n at

trial.

E. Awarding such other and further relief as

this Court deems just and proper, including costs and

disbursements, and interest on the foregoing.

Dated: J u l y 24, 2008

New Y o r k , New York

,MCCUE SUSSMANE & ZAPFEL, P.C.

\ \
Keyneth Sussmane
A t t o r n e y s for Plaintiff
521 Fifth Avenue, 2 8 t h Floor
New York, New York 10175
( 2 1 2 ) 931-5500

12
 www.courthousenews.com

VERIFICATION

I , Grace Zeno, being duly sworn, depose and say:

I am an authorized representative of the plaintiff in

this matter. I have read t h e foregoing Verified Complaint

and know the contents thereof; t h e same is true to my own

knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be

alleged on information and belief, and as to t h o s e matters

I believe it t o be t r u e .

Sworn to b e f o r e me
this 2 4 day of July, 2 0 0 8

Notary Public, State of New York

No. 02SU6057419
Qualifiid in New York County
Commission Expires November 11,ZO-

13
 www.courthousenews.com
1 1

-
-:--
-1 -

SUPREME COURT O F THE C I T Y O F NEW YORK

COUNTY O F NEW YORK
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
1 MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
: Index N o .

Plaintiff,

vs .

VIVIAN WANG and DNA MODEL

MANAGEMENT L L C ,
Defendants.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -

McCue Sussmane Zapfel, P . C .

&
Attorneys f o r Plaintiff
521 Fifth Ave., 28th Floor
New York, N e w Y o r k 1 0 0 1 8
(212) 931-5500