1. Welcome to the community at SNOWMAN'S RAINCOAT REVIEWS.

    You are currently viewing our discussion boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most conversations and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to participate in discussion threads and post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, participate in contests and special real time events, use the chat room and much more!. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! To sign up, click on the big button on the top right sidebar that says "Sign up Now!"

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello Guest! Our records indicate that you have never posted to our site before! Why not make your first post today by saying hello to our community in our Introductions forum and telling us a little about yourself? Become an active part of the SRR community now and make new friends!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Please do *not* post any photos on the forum. If you want to share a image, you can post a text link to it that is hosted on another site. Members who do not follow this rule will lose posting privileges. Thank you for your cooperation!
    Dismiss Notice

Girls Do Porn Faces Lawsuit Seeking Millions

Discussion in 'adult legal issues and news' started by Snowman, Jun 22, 2016.

  1. Snowman

    Snowman Your Host

    GirlsDoPorn.com and related individuals and businesses involved with the website were reportedly June 2nd in San Diego Superior Court by former "Jane Doe" models who appeared on the site. The 23 page complaint names 14 causes of action including sexual battery, gender violence, false imprisonment and fraudulent concealment. As damages, the four women are asking $500,000 each as compensatory damages plus punitive damages under the following theories: intentional and negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, misappropriation of name and likeness and breach of contract.

    The complaint is described by Courthouse News is as follows:

    The ... lawsuit tells a depressing tale. The women say the defendants advertised on Craigslist and other online sites for young women who want to break into modeling. The men then conned them into making pornography with promises of thousands of dollars in cash, according to the complaint.

    "The defendants assure them that they will not post the video online, they will not distribute the video in the United States, and they will keep each woman anonymous," the complaint states. "The defendants represent that the videos will be on DVDs overseas and for private use."

    The men then brought them to San Diego, took them to high-end hotels and coerced them into signing documents, "often yelling at them that there is no time to read," the women say.

    If the women resisted during filming or said they were in pain, they say, the men yelled at them and refused to let them leave. They say they were "confined in the hotel room and forced to film and have sex for many hours."

    "Even worse," they say, "the young women are sometimes forced to have sex when not filming — to appease the 'actor,' most often Garcia." ***

    Jane Doe #01 alleges she was promised $9,000 to appear in three clips. She claims her porn activies were "discovered by her high school, college and graduate school acquaintances — as well [as] her family." Doe #01 alleges she was subsequently harassed after her identity was leaked to the public.

    Jane Doe #04 alleges she was promised $2,000 and the producers only paid her $400. During the time of payment they gave her a stack of what appeared to be $20 bills the middle with filled with $1 bills. After she was outed, she claims she became depressed, could not leave the house, was blackmailed, and her car was vandalized.

    Reportedly, some women attempted suicide.

    The plaintiff's are represented by Brian Holm (business litigation), Robert Hamparyan (personal injury) and John J. O'Brien (business litigation).

    The lawsuit names the following defendants: Girlsdoporn.com; Michael Pratt (owner); Andre Garcia (principal actor); Matthew Wolfe (Matthew Wolfe); BLL Media Inc.; BLL Media Holdings LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DOMI Publications LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; EG Publications Inc.; M1M Media LLC; Bubblegum Films Inc.; Oh Well Media Limited; Merro Media Inc.; Merro Media Holdings LLC, a Nevada limited liability company.

    Sources:
    CNS - Women Call SoCal Pornographers Brutal Liars
    GirlsDoPorn Being Sued For Millions, Girls Claim That They Were Even Threatened.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  2. Snowman

    Snowman Your Host

    I verified the lawsuit and located the court docket number and filing information from the San Diego Superior Court. The case number is: 37-2016-00019027-CU-FR-CTL.

    View Case Detail

    The complaint and other documents in the case file are available to download online, but there is nominal fee charged by the page. I would like to see the complaint. If anyone has it, please send me a copy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
  3. ginko23

    ginko23 Supporting Member

    You can go to dozens of modeling sites and find girls willing to do just about anything for a buck. If GDPs business model was to take advantage of novice and wantabe models, they should be hammered to the full extent of the law.

    If the Jane’s that initiated the suit are truly innocent girls next door, I applaud their bravery. Rest assured the plaintive’s have a cohort of PIs documenting every dick they ever saw. I would think that once the word gets out more girls will join the suit.

    It will be interesting to see if this develops into a criminal case. If my life was ruined I would be more interested to see these guys in jail than get the money. Asking for $500,000 does not seem to be a lot.

    It will also be interesting to see if any “deep pockets” turn up during the discovery. It will also be interesting, if discovered, these deep pockets will make this thing go away.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Snowman

    Snowman Your Host

    Well remember, it's times 4 plus punitive damages could be much higher. That aspect of the award requires an examination of the financial condition of the defendants down the line. It's the plaintiff's burden of proof to show this.

    Of course, there's two sides to every story and we have not heard from producers yet. Porn stars generally lie like a rug. On the other hand, most people in the industry cannot be trusted. Expect "night and day" type stories for the duration of this case.
     
  5. ginko23

    ginko23 Supporting Member

    I meant to say defendants not plaintives hiring PIs in my above post.

    One of their allegations is that they are leaking their personal information to other websites. I don’t believe this is the case (at least one exception) but should be pursued. The GDP threads on freeones and Reddit were moderated by GDP. For the most part I think they tried not to out the girls by their doing or error. The one exception was the Miss Teen USA girl. In that case I think she was outed and then they capitalized on it by advertising, perhaps through surrogates.

    I think the site they are referring to is PWL. I would like to believe that no legitimate porn company would work with them outing porn girls. Pursuing that avenue would more than likely uncover HIPAA violations that would be interesting.

    Jury selection would be interesting. 1) How many people have not been to an Amway or Time-share presentation. It seems to me that the Time Share folks use a similar MO to the GDP people. Free trip, free room, free tickets to shows. If you don’t buy after wasting your afternoon, they call in the high pressure nasty crew to make you feel guilty. 2) How many people particularly the conservative folks feel they deserved what they got.

    My gut tells me that a judge would be better.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2016
  6. ginko23

    ginko23 Supporting Member

    Some redundancy here. Sorry.

    MikeSouth.com, now under new management, has posted the complaint filed by 14 Jane Does against girlsdoporn. The 35 page document is a good read if your interested in this type of thing. As I’ve been casually following this and nothing in there came as a big surprise. Craig’s List is mentioned as their primary source at least for the lawsuit. I thought they were trolling other sites like modelmayhem.

    It looks like 10 more names have been added to the original complaint. Somewhere I read that this is now a class action lawsuit. I don’t know what the exact implication of this status means.

    The San Diego Reader has an excellent must read feature. In it they identify five hotels that are the locations for San Diego porn shoots. I don’t know if GDP uses all of these or if this is what the writer came up with as a generality for the porn industry there.

    Kimpton Palomar Hotel
    Coronado Island Marriott
    Hard Rock Hotel
    Hilton Bayfront
    La Valencia Hotel, La Jolla.

    I support the lawsuit but I would think that proving the allegations will be very difficult. I also believe that collecting will be difficult given that it looks like this is an off shore operation with ample opportunities to hide the money.

    For that reason I’m curious why the attorney’s did not drag the hotels into this as accomplices. It would seem to me that they have deep pockets and would be eager for all this to go away. It also looks like GDP is continuing to use these places as their studios. From a SJW perspective it would seem that taking away the posh “studios” would handicap GDP in their sales technique.

    I would be interested if anyone has seen a crosswalk between the Jane Doe # and the “e” (episode number) of the shoot.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page