IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURt
for THE Northern DISTRICT OF florida
Panama city DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH R. FRANCIS; MRA HOLDINGS, LLC, a California limited liability company; MANTRA FILMS INC., an Oklahoma corporation, d/b/a “Girls Gone Wild;” and AERO FALCONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
Defendants. / ))))))))))))))) / Case No. 08 C 79
JURY DEMAND
CLASS ACTION
amended COMPLAINT – class action
Introduction
1. This action is brought on behalf of a National Class of minor girls who Defendants sexually exploited by filming them exposing their breasts and/or engaging in sexually explicit conduct for Girls Gone Wild video series. This Class of children brings suit to recover the damage they sustained when Defendants sexual exploited them.
The Parties
2. Plaintiff J (“PJ”) was at all times pertinent to the alleged conduct set forth in this Complaint a minor child age 13 and a resident of the State of Florida.
3. Plaintiff V (“PV”) was at all times pertinent to the alleged conduct set forth in this Complaint a minor child age 16 and a resident of the State of Florida.
4. Plaintiff (“PS”) was at all times pertinent to the alleged conduct set forth in this Complaint a minor child age 15 and a resident of the State of Florida.
5. Plaintiff B (“PB”) was at all times pertinent to the alleged conduct set forth in this Complaint a minor child age 17 and a resident of the State of North Carolina.
6. Defendant MRA Holdings, LLC (“MRA”) is a California limited liability company which has its principal place of business in California.
7. Defendant Mantra Films, Inc. (“Mantra”) is the sole member and manager of MRA, and is an Oklahoma corporation whose principal place of business is in California. Mantra does business as “Girls Gone Wild” (“GGW”) and produces and markets videotapes and DVDs (“GGW series”) under that name throughout the world.
8. Defendant Aero Falcons, LLC (“Aero”) is a Delaware limited liability company in which Joseph R. Francis is a member and the sole owner. Aero provides the GGW aircraft with which GGW conducts its business.
9. Defendant Joseph R. Francis (“Francis”) at all pertinent times was an individual residing in the state of Nevada. Francis is the sole owner and President of Mantra, and the President of MRA.
Jurisdiction and Venue
10. This is an action arising out of a federal statute and contains claims that are related to the federal claim. This Court therefore has jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1367.
11. Venue is proper in this district under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) and Title 18 U.S.C. §1965.
Class Action Allegations
12. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
13. Plaintiffs bring claims in this action on behalf of a national Class consisting of minor girls who Defendants exploited through criminal actions and filmed exposing their breasts (“flashing”) and/or engaging in sexually explicit conduct as defined by 18 U.S.C. §2256(2) for the GGW series.
14. Sexually explicit conduct is defined as “sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex .... masturbation .... lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area of any person.” 18 U.S.C. §2256(2) (West 2008).
15. The Class includes three Subclasses.
16. Subclass 1 is a national subclass which consists of all minor girls who Defendants employed, used, persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced into engaging in sexually explicit conduct as defined by 18 U.S.C. §2256(2) for the GGW series.
17. Subclass 2 is a Florida subclass which consists of minor girls who Defendants and their agents filmed in Florida flashing and/or engaging in sexually explicit conduct for the GGW series.
18. Subclass 3 is a Florida subclass which consists of all minor girls who Defendants, and their agents coerced through payment to engage in sexually explicit conduct alone, with each other, or with Defendant Francis, to further the interests of the GGW series.
19. Plaintiffs believe that there are hundreds of Class and Subclass members as above described. The exact number and their identities are known to the Defendants.
20. The Class and Subclasses are so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all members is impracticable.
21. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and the Subclasses which relate to:
a. Defendants’ practice of failing to create or maintain individually identifiable age and identification documentation for the girls appearing in the GGW series which resulted in Defendants filming children flashing and/or engaged in sexually explicit conduct in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §2251 et seq. and tort law;
b. Defendants’ use of cash and tee-shirts to solicit children to engage in sex acts with each other, with Defendant Francis, or with GGW agents or affiliated people to further the interests of the GGW series in direct violation of Florida law prohibiting coercion into prostitution.
22. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class and the Subclasses.
23. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and the Subclasses. The interests of the Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to the absent members of the Class or Subclass. In addition, Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are experienced in the prosecution of these types of claims.
24. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class and Subclasses predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
25. A class action is superior to all other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Class and the Subclasses are readily definable. Prosecution as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation.
Factual Background
26. Defendants MRA, Mantra, Aero, and Francis are in the business of producing, directing, editing and distributing sexually graphic videotapes of “girls” flashing and/or engaged in sexual conduct for Defendants’ commercial financial gain.
27. Defendant Francis, as CEO of Mantra, conducts the business of Mantra directly and indirectly through agents, independent contractors, and employees.
28. Defendant Francis, as the CEO of Mantra, conducts business through the use of vehicles and equipment owned or leased by MRA, Mantra, Aero, and Francis.
29. Among the vehicles and equipment owned or leased directly or indirectly by Mantra are various aircraft, vans, buses, and automobiles (hereinafter “GGW Vehicles”), and computers, cameras, video recorders, video players and duplicators, videotapes, editing equipment, dubbing equipment, audio and video equipment, cell phones and other communication devices, and GGW logo tee shirts and hats (hereinafter “GGW Production Equipment”).
30. Mantra uses and employs, directly or indirectly, as agents, independent contractors, employees, and/or affiliate persons, or otherwise arranged for the services of various production personnel including Defendant Francis, and other unknown individuals (hereinafter “Production Personnel”). These individuals travel from state to state for the purpose of promoting, producing, directing, and marketing GGW videos.
31. The Production Personnel, as well as other Mantra employees, independent contractors, and agents, in the regular course of their employment, arrange for the acquisition and interstate transportation of GGW Production Equipment and GGW Vehicles (hereinafter collectively the “GGW Production Materials”).
32. The Production Personnel travel interstate for the purpose of producing videos of “girls” flashing and/or engaged in sexual conduct for the GGW video series. To facilitate this video production, the Defendants rent motel rooms, condominiums, and/or houses.
33. As owner, officer, and employee of Defendants MRA, Mantra and Aero, Defendant Francis oversees and controls all aspects of the production and marketing of the GGW video series.
34. All Defendants are liable for the tortious acts of the Production Personnel as alleged herein in that the tortious acts so alleged were committed during the course of these unknown individuals' engagement with Mantra and to further the purpose or interests of Mantra.
35. All Defendants assisted the Production Personnel in accomplishing their tortious acts by virtue of their relationship and/or by providing them with the GGW Production Materials or other assets which were used to facilitate the commission of the various torts alleged.
36. The tortious acts alleged herein arise out of the individual acts of the Defendants, as specifically alleged, and as a result of an overall conspiracy of all of them and other unknown GGW representatives as alleged herein, to promote the commercial financial interests of each of them.
37. All tortious acts alleged herein were supported and made possible by said conspiracy through the combined efforts, aid, and assets of each of the Defendants and Production Personnel.
GGW Business Practices Sexually Exploited Minor Girls
38. From when GGW began its operation forward, Defendants did not verify the age of the girls they filmed for the GGW series by the examination of individually identifiable age and identification records.
39. Defendants failed to create and maintain individually identifiable age and identification records for the girls who appeared in the GGW series either flashing and/or engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct.
40. In fact, it has been the business practice of the Defendants not to create and maintain any such records.
41. Defendant Francis was personally involved in persuading girls to engage in sexually explicit conduct, reviewing the footage obtained by the cameramen, deciding which footage would be used in commercially marketed and released films, and deciding how the company’s products would be packaged and marketed.
42. Defendant Francis was personally involved in training Defendants’ employees, independent contractors, and agents in all aspects of conducting GGW business, including targeting, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing minor girls into flashing and/or engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
43. To persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the minor girls to flash and/or to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the GGW series, Defendants and the Production Personnel served minor girls such as PB and members of the Class and Subclasses alcohol and/or alcohol which some girls believed was laced with drugs.
44. To persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the minor girls to flash and/or to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the GGW series, Defendants and the Production Personnel solicited minor girls such as Plaintiffs PB and PV and members of the Class and Subclasses through the offer and/or payment of cash.
45. Defendant Francis, Defendants, and the Production Personnel solicited minor girls such as PB and PV and members of the Class and Subclasses with the offer and/or payment of cash to engage in sexually explicit conduct alone, with each other or with Defendant Francis, to further the interests of the GGW video series.
46. Despite having failed to create and maintain sufficient individually identifiable age and identification records as required by Federal law, Defendants duplicated, marketed, used, and transported interstate video footage containing the images of minor girls such as Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclasses flashing and/or engaged in sexually explicit conduct for use in the GGW series.
47. In doing so, Defendants and the Production Personnel conspired to and did unlawfully promote, produce, direct, and sell images of minor girls flashing and/or engaged in sexually explicit conduct while knowing the character and content thereof, in that they produced, directed, and promoted videotapes of minor Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclasses in direct violation of the law.
48. All Defendants have admitted as much.
49. In United States v. Francis, 06-969, Defendant Francis pled guilty to producing, manufacturing, or publishing film, videotape, and digital image or picture of sexually explicit conduct for which he failed to create or maintain individually identifiable records as required by 18 U .S.C. §2257 and 28 C.F.R §75 pertaining to every performer portrayed in such visual depiction, including a legible copy of an identification document. (Francis Plea Agreement, p. 3, attached as Exhibit A; emphasis added).
50. In United States v. Mantra Films Inc. 5:06-CR-78, Defendant Mantra Films Inc., (“Mantra”) pled guilty to producing visual depictions that contained sexually explicit conduct and Mantra failed to create or maintain individually identifiable age and identification documentation for one or more of the performers who appear in that visual depiction. (Mantra Plea Agreement, p.3, attached as Exhibit B, emphasis added).
51. In United States v. MRA Holdings, LLC, 5:06-CR-79, MRA Holdings, LLC pled guilty to failing to create or maintain documentation that the performers engaging in sexually explicit conduct were at least 18 years of age and to label the DVDs with a statement describing where the records required may be located. (MRA Deferred Prosecution Agreement, p.14, attached as Exhibit C, emphasis added).
52. In Appendix B to the MRA Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Defendant Francis made a “public statement” where he admitted, “during 2002 and at times in 2003, we produced and distributed videos and DVDs without obtaining the required records or attaching the appropriate labeling.” (MRA Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Appendix B, attached as Exhibit C, emphasis added).
53. Defendant Francis also admitted, “My companies and I acknowledge what we did was wrong and violated federal laws. We also acknowledge that as a result of these violations footage of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct appeared in at least two DVDs that were commercially released for sale to the public by Mantra Films Inc., MRA Holdings LLC, and me.” (MRA Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Appendix B, attached as Exhibit C).
54. In the Mantra Plea Agreement, Mantra admitted that it produced films of minor girls such as Plaintiff PB and other members of the Class and Subclass engaged in sexually explicit conduct in three GGW titles, “Ultimate Spring Break Volumes 3 and 4,” and “Girls Gone Wild on Campus Uncensored.” (Mantra Plea Agreement, attached as Exhibit B).
55. Defendant Mantra also admitted that it failed to include a statement describing the location of the individually identifiable age and identification records required for all performers depicted in films as required by Federal law for the titles, “Totally Exposed and Uncensored and Beyond, Volumes 1-5” and “Girls Gone Wild College Girls Exposed/Sexy Sorority Sweethearts.” These titles included minor Plaintiffs PS and PJ and other members of the Class and Subclasses. (Mantra Plea Agreement, Exhibit B).
56. Defendants Mantra and Defendant MRA further admitted they failed to maintain records of individually identifiable age and identification records as required by Federal law for 16 titles from the GGW series, some containing volumes 1-12, and 36 titles classified as holding license and consignment footage, some containing multiple volumes. (Mantra Plea Agreement, Exhibit B).
57. Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclasses have suffered and will continue to suffer physical and mental injuries as a result of Defendants employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing them into flashing and/or engaging in sexually explicit conduct for the GGW video series for the Defendants’ commercial financial gain.
58. The harm that Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclasses have suffered is ongoing and aggravated by the fact that the images of Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass flashing and/or engaged in sexually explicit conduct have been distributed worldwide and can surface at any time causing further harm to the Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclasses.
Count I
(Action on Behalf of Subclass 1 for Sexual Exploitation Under Title U.S.C. § 2251)
59. Plaintiff PB and members of Subclass 1 reallege paragraphs 1 through 58 as if specifically set forth herein.
60. Defendants and/or the Production Personnel employed, used, persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced minor child plaintiff PB and members of Subclass 1 with the intent that such minor children engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct, knowing such depiction would be transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and transporting such depiction in interstate or foreign commerce.
61. Defendants and/or the Production Personnel did give minor children, plaintiff PB and members of Subclass 1, alcohol which at least PB believed included drugs, and U.S. currency to engage in sexually explicit conduct including masturbation and lasciviously exhibition of their genitals and pubic area.
62. No GGW representative ascertained by examination of an identification document the name or date of birth of PB and members of Subclass 1 as required by Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257.
63. No GGW representative maintained a copy of any identification documents with the name or date of birth of PB and members of Subclass 1 as required by Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257.
64. Videotapes of sexually explicit conduct involving PB and members of Subclass 1 were produced by Defendants’ unknown representatives using materials which had been transported interstate including the GGW Production Materials and said videotaped visual depiction was subsequently transported for use in the GGW series, all in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and § 2252(a)(1) and (a)(3)(B).
65. PB and members of Subclass 1 have suffered, and will continue to suffer, mental and physical injuries as a result of those violations of federal law and are, therefore, entitled to actual damages of a minimum of $150,000 per child and the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under Title 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
WHEREFORE, PB and members of Subclass 1 demand judgment for actual damages of at least $150,000 per child, plus the cost of this lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Count II
(Action on Behalf of Subclass 2 for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
66. Plaintiffs and members of Subclass 2 reallege paragraphs 1 through 58 as if specifically set forth herein.
67. Defendants and the Production Personnel did intentionally inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiffs and members of Subclass 2 by filming them engaged in flashing and/or sexually explicit conduct, sometimes providing alcohol and US currency, all for the purpose of videotaping such conduct for the commercial financial exploitation of their image in the GGW video series.