Interesting, Victoria Beckham isnt the only one having problems with Rock & Republic. This suit between photographer Markus Klinko and Rock & Republic is even in the New York post at http://www.nypost.com/seven/01262007/news/nationalnews/fashion_passion_sextortion_nationalnews_dareh_gregorian_and_bill_hoffmann.htm and
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272007/news/regionalnews/4_way_triangle_regionalnews_dareh_gregorian.htm
Theres an interview Michael Ball did about working with Markus, and it was pretty nice. Its on youtube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=2bsXaWdhHC8
Check out this lawsuit, what do you guys think about this?:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
MARKUS KLINKO and MARKUS KLINKO
Index No.
PHOTOGRAPHY, INC., d/b/a MARKUS KLINKO & INDRANI PHOTOGRAPHY,
V
ERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
-against-
ROCK & REPUBLIC ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a ROCK & REPUBLIC JEANS and
MICHAEL BALL, individually,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiffs MARKUS KLINKO and MARKUS KLINKO PHOTOGRAPHY, INC.,
d/b/a MARKUS KLINKO & INDRANI PHOTOGRAPHY, by and through their
attorneys,
MELTZER LoPRESTI, LLP, as and for their complaint against Defendants
ROCK &
REPUBLIC ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a ROCK & REPUBLIC JEANS and MICHAEL
BALL, allege as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This action responds to a pattern of threats and extortion
perpetrated by defendant
Michael Ball (ìBallî), the CEO, founder and head designer for
defendant Rock & Republic
Enterprises, Inc. (ìRock & Republicî), a manufacturer of fashionable
denim jeans under the
brand name ìRock & Republicî.
2. Fueled by jealousies over an ex-fiancÈ that abandoned Ball and who
subsequently
entered into a long term romantic relationship with plaintiff Markus
Klinko (ìKlinkoî), and
seeking to protect himself from potentially damaging information
regarding his past, Ball
embarked on a crusade to intimidate Klinko personally and
professionally. Upon obtaining
possession of intimate e-mails and sexually explicit photos exchanged
by Klinko and Ballís exfiancÈ,
Ball proceeded to threaten Klinko to ìwalk awayî from his ex-lover
and any monies
owed to plaintiffs, because if he didnít, Ball would use his ìpower
and influenceî in the fashion
industry, as well as the photos and e-mails, to publicly embarrass
and ruin Klinko personally and
professionally. Ballís threat: ìyou donít want to fuck with meî.
3. In December 2006, Klinko, together with his business partner
Indrani Pal-
Chaudhuri (ìIndraniî) and their studio, Markus Klinko & Indrani
Photography (ìMKIPî), had
originally been hired by defendant Rock & Republic to shoot an
international advertising
campaign for their brand.
4. Klinko, a highly successful, internationally acclaimed, fashion/
celebrity
photographer who has become well known for his work with A-list
actors, musicians and models
in the entertainment industry such as Jennifer Lopez, Britney Spears,
Mariah Carey, Janet
Jackson, Beyonce, Lindsay Lohan and David Bowie, among many others,
as well as for his work
in major advertising campaigns and fashion magazines, was introduced
to Ball by Ballís exfiancÈ
while she was in a romantic relationship with Klinko. However, upon
information and
belief, Ball was unaware of this relationship.
5. Thereafter, despite being admittedly extremely pleased by Klinko
and MKIPís
work and the obvious success of the photo shoot, instead, Ball later
sought to humiliate and
embarrass Klinko and MKIP by making unreasonable and nonsensical
demands. Ball followed
by then refusing to use any of plaintiffsí images, by refusing to use
Klinko and MKIP in any
further ad campaigns (as defendants had promised), and by refusing to
compensate plaintiffs
without any viable reason.
6. One week later, upon coming into possession of the aforesaid
sexually explicit
images and personal e-mails, Ball then proceeded to threaten Klinko,
claiming to be a ìbig shotî
in the industry (ìdo you know who I amî), and that Klinko would be
embarrassed, humiliated
and professionally ruined by this personal information and the
release of the photos if he didnít
simply ìwalk awayî from any of his claims against defendants or his
former lover, repeatedly
intimidating Klinko with such statements as ìdonít fuck with me or
youíll regret itî, ìyou donít
want to fuck with meî and ìlet it go, or elseî.
7. At that time, Ballís threats also included him assisting in the
filing of a
harassment claim against Klinko with local police and spending
whatever money it took for his
attorneys to pursue Klinko through representation of his ex-fiancÈ.
8. As alleged herein, in conjunction with the making of such threats,
Ball feigned the
act of ìprotectingî his former lover as if a ìknight in shining
armorî, while portraying Klinko as
a disgruntled boyfriend. However, numerous e-mails and communications
between both Klinko
and Ballís ex-fiancÈ subsequent to their separation and prior to
Ballís threats, belie such a
characterization. Rather, these communications support plaintiffsí
claims of Ballís jealous and
vindictive motivation, as they detail numerous times a loving desire
by Ballís ex-fiancÈ to
continue to remain in a relationship with Klinko, or in the least to
remain in communication with
him. In an e-mail to Klinko dated December 28, 2006, she elaborated:
ìListen [ ]now that you
met Michael you can understand why I got so traumatized.î
9. Defendant Ball has continued to act in bad faith through such
threats, and has
benefited by improperly retaining the fruits of plaintiffsí labor, by
preventing plaintiffs from
recovering what is rightfully theirs, by use of threats intended to
destroy Klinkoís personal life
and professional career and to embarrass and severely injure
plaintiffsí reputation and financial
interests. Threats of ruining someoneís career through extortion and
blackmail should not be
tolerated - and resorting to bully tactics in avoidance of proper
resolution through the judicial
system is simply unacceptable.
THE PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Markus Klinko (ìKlinkoî), is an individual and resident
of New York
County. Klinko is an internationally known, high-end fashion/
celebrity photographer, catering to
numerous well-known actors, musicians and models in the entertainment
industry, as well as
international advertising campaigns and magazines.
11. Plaintiff Markus Klinko Photography, Inc., d/b/a Markus Klinko &
Indrani
Photography (ìMKIPî), is a corporation duly organized under the laws
of the State of New
York, and maintains a principal place of business in the City, County
and State of New York.
MKIP is in the business of photographic and imaging services.
12. Upon information and belief, defendant Rock & Republic
Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
Rock & Republic Jean (ìRock & Republicî), is a corporation organized
under the laws of the
State of California, with a principal office located at 3525 Eastham
Drive, Culver City,
California 90232. Rock & Republic is a manufacturer of, among other
things, denim jeans,
which are sold in New York.
13. Upon information and belief, Michael Ball (ìBallî), is a resident
of the State of
California and is the CEO and founder of defendant Rock & Republic.
VENUE
14. In accordance with Rule 503(a) of the New York Civil Practice Law
and Rules,
venue is appropriate in this Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
15. Plaintiffs maintain a well-known business in photography and
photographic
imaging, catering to a high-end fashion/celebrity clientele of
actors, musicians and models in the
entertainment industry, also creating images seen in international
advertising campaigns and
magazines.
16. Defendants Ball and Rock & Republic represent the brand ìRock &
Republicî, a
clothing line that primarily features fashionable denim jeans.
17. On or about November 22, 2006, defendants sought a high-end
photographer to
shoot their major advertising campaign for Spring 2007, to be
revealed at Fashion Week in New
York, February 2007.
18. At that time, defendant Klinko was romantically involved with
Fernanda Romero
(ìRomeroî), a soap opera actress and aspiring model. Romero
introduced Klinko to Ball, in an
apparent attempt to garner a position as featured model in the Rock &
Republic campaign.
19. Several years earlier, defendant Ball had been romantically
involved with
Romero, and had even proposed to her. The couple subsequently became
engaged.
20. Upon information and belief, after a tumultuous relationship in
which Ball had
several violent incidences with Romero, Romero left Ball and ended
the relationship.
21. Upon information and belief, at various times during 2005, Ball
assisted and/or
aided Romero in procuring a fraudulent marriage for immigration
purposes, and also assisted and
advised Romero in obtaining a false social security identification
card while utilizing two
different social security numbers.
22. In about January, 2006, Romero became romantically involved with
plaintiff
Klinko. Upon information and belief, this occurred despite Ballís
attempts to woo Romero back
by buying her a new car during that same time.
23. During Romero and Klinkoís relationship, Romero would often
reveal to Klinko
highly confidential and intimate details about her relationship with
Ball, and at times she would
even broadcast phone conversations with Ball via speakerphone or by
placing the phone at full
volume.
24. On numerous occasions, Romero referred to sensitive matters
regarding their
prior relationship, such as instances of violence by Ball leading to
police involvement and
Romeroís complaints to the police, immigration fraud and his
complicity in her fraudulent
marriage and the procurement of false social security numbers, tapes
of their therapy sessions
and conversations regarding his sexuality.
25. Upon information and belief, Klinkoís acquired knowledge of such
accounts was
the partial motivation for Ball to eventually seek to silence and
extort Klinko.
26. In about November 2006, Romero introduced Klinko to Ball in an
apparent effort
to be featured in the Rock & Republic advertising campaign.
27. Upon information and belief, until that time, Romero had never
told Ball that she
was involved with Klinko for fear of not being awarded a model
contract with Rock & Republic.
28. Upon meeting, Ball represented that since defendants had
partnered with and/or
been involved in major campaigns with celebrity personalities such as
Victoria Beckham (ìPosh
Spiceî) and plans to feature Jessica Alba in an upcoming fashion
season, plaintiffs would
benefit from the added exposure of a full advertising campaign with
the Rock & Republic
brand.1
29. As defendants were aware, Klinko and MKIP demand a superior ìday
rateî in the
industry due to their status and impressive client roster.
Plaintiffsí images are known worldwide,
as they have produced many instantly recognizable photographs for A-
list celebrities, musicians
and models in the entertainment industry, such as Jennifer Lopez,
Britney Spears, Mariah Carey,
Beyonce, Lindsay Lohan, Mary J. Blige, Kate Winslet, Keanu Reeves,
David Bowie, among
others, as well as major advertising campaigns for highly visible
clients such as L'Oreal Paris,
Pepsi, Hugo Boss, Nike, Elizabeth Arden, Baby Phat, and many others.
Such images have also
appeared in well-known magazines such as Vanity Fair, V, GQ,
Interview, Arena and Playboy,
among others. (See http://www.markusklinko-indrani.com/photoGallery/ )
30. On or about December 5, 2006, the parties agreed that plaintiffs
would be retained
by defendants in relation to the advertising campaign for defendantsí
brand ìRock & Republicî
(hereinafter, ìthe Workî), on the following terms: (i) plaintiffs
would be guaranteed ìon page ad
creditî for their work; and (ii) plaintiffs were to be granted
exclusive rights to shoot future
campaigns for the brand. In return, plaintiffs agreed to: (a) waive
their session fee (which
consisted of a day rate of $ 30,000.00); (b) grant international
usage of images produced for one
year (valued at $ 30,000.00); and (c) provide digital post production
services at cost. Attached as
Exhibit ìAî is the partiesí agreement. As is standard, up front
expenses of the photo shoot were
to be paid prior to the shoot.
31. At this time, by the explicit instruction of Ball, Romero was not
to be used in the
1 Unknown to Klinko, defendants and Victoria Beckham had parted ways,
and upon
photo shoot because ìshe cheated on meî, as Ball stated before both
his and plaintiffsí staff.
32. Pursuant to said agreement, on about December 14, 2007,
plaintiffs duly
performed the required services in connection with the Work.
33. The photo shoot was a great success, and defendant Ball openly
praised the
plaintiffsí work, which he also declared on camera in a video
produced for the campaign. As
stated by Ball:
ìI just wanted to say working with Markus and Indrani was
amazing . . . they're
the future of fashion, I mean I'm really stoked as a young company to
be working
with them and I think this is the beginning of greatness . . .
honestly. It was quite
a shoot, and . . . you guys will see it, it'll be on the pages, of
March . . .
I'd be honest I look forward to work with them again and again. I
mean honestly .
. . this is a relationship and a partnership that is going to create
some really
amazing, amazing things, and I look forward to it. It's going to be
really fucking
cool . . .î.
34. By about December 21, 2007, plaintiffs had already prepared seven
(7) composed
ad proposals for presentation to defendants.
35. On that date, following plaintiffsí submission of images for
consideration,
defendant Ball suddenly contacted plaintiffs and for no reason,
demanded that plaintiffs
immediately turn over all images taken - even test images. Such a
demand under these
circumstances is unheard of and is not standard in the industry.
36. Despite Ballís unreasonable demand, plaintiffs additionally
provided several
dozen images to defendants on December 22 and December 29, 2006.
37. At this time, plaintiffs further explained that the edited
selection of images was
ready for review, however, defendant Ball simply refused to
communicate at all with plaintiffs
information and belief, has recently sued defendants.
about the proposed image selection.
38. Thereafter, defendants notified plaintiffsí agent that they were
not only refusing to
use any of plaintiffsí images, but were refusing to use Klinko and
MKIP in any further ad
campaigns (as promised).
39. Defendants also notified plaintiffsí agent and Klinko directly
that they were
refusing to compensate plaintiffs at all, without any viable reason.
40. Upon information and belief, on or about January 15, 2007,
defendant Ball came
into possession and/or viewed highly personal, sexually explicit
photos and e-mails, shared
between Klinko and Romero.
41. On January 18, 2007, defendant Ball contacted Klinkoís attorney
by telephone,
stating he had viewed the sexually explicit photographs and e-mails.
42. In that conversation, Ball threatened that if Klinko contacted or
pursued Romero
any further, Klinkoís reputation would be damaged by the exposure of
such information.
43. On about January 21, 2007, Klinko contacted Ball by telephone,
whereupon Ball
proceeded to threaten Klinko that if he did not ìback offî and simply
ìwalk awayî from any
claims he had against defendants or Romero, Ball would expend all of
his power and influence to
embarrass, humiliate and professionally ruin Klinko by exposure of
this personal information.
44. On that phone conversation, defendant Ball repeatedly threatened
and intimidated
Klinko with statements such as ìdonít fuck with me or youíll regret
itî, ìlet it go, or elseî, ìyou
donít want to fuck with meî and ìdonít fuck with me on a personal
levelî.
45. Ballís threats also included that he would assist Romero in
filing a bogus
harassment claim with local police and spend ìany amount of moneyî on
attorneys for Romero
to pursue Klinko, in addition to causing crippling financial loss to
plaintiffs.
46. On that phone conversation, Ball threatened and intimated that if
Klinko did not
ìback offî and ìwalk awayî, he would use all of his influence and
connections in the industry to
prevent Klinko and MKIP from earning money with other clients, and
would openly and publicly
refuse to use plaintiffsí work, thus causing further embarrassment
and humiliation.
47. On that phone conversation, Ball also threatened to force Klinko
to expend great
sums of money via legal battles and attorneysí fees, that would
essentially put Klinko out of
business.
48. In conjunction with making such threats, Ball feigned the act of
ìprotectingî
Romero. However, upon information and belief, Ball is simply
protecting his own interests and
using the opportunity of Romeroís romantic relationship with Klinko,
and the sexually explicit
photos and personal e-mails, to avoid his own liability and to strike
out maliciously against
Klinko.
49. Upon communicating with defendant Ball on January 21, 2007, and
in fear and
apprehension over the aforesaid threats received from Ball, Klinko
decided to forgo pursing Ball,
Rock & Republic and/or Romero for monies owed and services performed.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST MICHAEL BALL
(Extortion)
50. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs ì1î through ì49î, above by
reference.
51. That defendant Ball did threaten and intimidate plaintiff Klinko
that if he did not
relinquish his rights to property, namely money plaintiffs are
entitled to, and if Klinko did not
cease all communications with Romero, he would expose personal
documents and photographs
and publicize the same, subjecting Klinko to contempt, ridicule or
embarrassment.
52. That defendant Ball did threaten and intimidate plaintiff Klinko
that if he did not
relinquish his rights to property, namely money plaintiffs are
entitled to, and if Klinko did not
cease all communications with Romero, he would assist in accusing
Klinko of a crime and/or
cause criminal charges to be instituted against him.
53. That defendant Ball did threaten and intimidate plaintiff Klinko
that if he did not
relinquish his rights to property, namely money plaintiffs are
entitled to, and if Klinko did not
cease all communications with Romero, he would use his influence in
the fashion industry and
spend any amount of money to defame, bad mouth and harm Klinko
personally and
professionally, in the fashion and entertainment industry.
54. That such wrongful actions would cause serious injury to
plaintiffsí reputations
and business interests.
55. That by reason of defendant Ballís threats, defendants improperly
obtained
property, namely, services, money and images to which they are not
entitled.
56. By reason of defendant Ballís attempted extortion, plaintiffs are
entitled to
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory and
punitive damages in an amount to
be determined at trial.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST MICHAEL BALL
(Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations)
57. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs ì1î through ì56î, above by
reference.
58. Plaintiffsí public image and relations with clients and
advertisers, agents, models,
make-up artists, hair stylists, and those employed in the
entertainment industry are crucial to
their business.
59. Defendant Ballís wrongful actions, as described in the foregoing
paragraphs, and
which include the willful breach of the Rock & Republic advertising
campaign contract without
reason, exhibit an intentional, malicious and unjustified
interference with plaintiffsí current and
future business relations with said clients and advertisers, and
those employed in the
entertainment industry.
60. Defendant Ballís actions, as described in the foregoing
paragraphs, were improper
and beyond the scope of his position as CEO of defendant Rock &
Republic, such that these
actions served to interfere with plaintiffsí current and future
business relations with Rock &
Republic.
61. Defendant Ballís interference with plaintiffsí business relations
was undertaken
with the sole purpose of harassing plaintiffs and/or with dishonest,
unfair or improper means.
62. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result
of defendant
Ballís conduct, plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as compensatory
and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST MICHAEL BALL
(Prima Facie Tort)
63. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs ì1î through ì62î, above by
reference.
64. Defendant Ballís wrongful conduct was completely unjustified and
was intended
solely to inflict substantial harm against plaintiffs.
65. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiffs are entitled to
declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to
be determined at trial.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST MICHAEL BALL
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
66. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs ì1î through ì65î, above by
reference.
67. Defendant Ballís wrongful conduct, as described in the foregoing
paragraphs,
constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct and behavior.
68. Defendant Ball acted with malice, and with the intent to cause
severe emotional
distress to plaintiff Klinko and/or in deliberate disregard of the
high probability that severe
emotional distress to Klinko would result.
69. Defendant Ball has maliciously embarked on a course of conduct
intended to
cause Klinko to suffer mental and emotional distress, tension and
anxiety.
70. Plaintiff Klinko has suffered and will continue to suffer great
mental strain and
anguish and severe emotional distress.
71. By reason of the foregoing and as a direct and proximate result
of defendant
Ballís conduct, plaintiff Klinko is entitled to compensatory and
punitive damages against
defendant Ball in an amount to be determined at trial.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT ROCK & REPUBLIC
(Breach of Contract)
72. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs ì1î through ì71î, above by
reference.
73. To date, despite due demand, defendant Rock & Republic has
refused to pay
plaintiffs for their services.
74. That defendant has willfully breached its agreement with
plaintiffs by failing to
pay plaintiffs for their services duly rendered.
75. That defendant has willfully breached its agreement with
plaintiffs by refusing to
use plaintiffsí images and provide plaintiffs with credit
acknowledgment of the same.
76. That defendant has willfully breached its agreement with
plaintiffs by failing to
provide plaintiffs exclusivity for their services as ìpartnersî with
regard to future advertising
campaigns.
77. That as a result of defendantís breach of the partiesí agreement,
plaintiffs have
been damaged in a sum to be determined at trial, but believed to be
no less than Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($ 500,000.00).
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT ROCK & REPUBLIC
(Unjust Enrichment)
78. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs ì1î through ì77î, above by
reference.
79. Under the doctrine of quantum meruit, defendant Rock & Republic
has been
unjustly enriched by receiving the benefit of the services provided
by the plaintiffs in a sum to be
determined at trial, but believed to be an amount no less than Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($
200,000.00).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants as follows:
a. Declaring that the acts and practices complained of herein are in
violation of the
laws of the State of New York;
b. Enjoining and permanently restraining these violations;
c. Directing Defendants to pay compensatory and punitive damages to
Plaintiffs in
an amount to be proven at trial;
d. Awarding Plaintiffs costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneysí
fees; and
e. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
January 23, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
MELTZER LoPRESTI, LLP
By: /s/ _________________________
Anthony A. LoPresti
30 Broad Street, 37th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 425-0551
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Reply \ New Comment
|
