Non-solicitation Rule Lifted in NY Fashion Agencies' Heated Battle Over 'Mass Exodus' of 55 Models
What exactly occurred with the alleged poaching or "conspiracy designed to destroy" Men Women N.Y. Management by Elite Model Management was not before the Appellate Division, First Department, an injunction order on soliciting models away was. That legal issue was decided. The substance of why 55 models suddenly left Men Women N.Y. last spring and summer must still be hashed out.
May 27, 2020 at 07:56 PM
6 minute read
In a battle of major modeling agencies over the alleged stealing of talent, a state appeals court has ruled that one agency that had been barred from soliciting the other's models—after being accused of causing the "mass exodus" of 55 models—is no longer restrained by a temporary injunction.
The agency that has won the lifting of the preliminary injunction, Elite Model Management, has argued in court papers that only about a dozen of the fashion models who departed last spring and summer from Men Women N.Y. Model Management landed at its agency, and that Men Women N.Y. is "in free fall" because of "self-inflicted wounds."
The models at the center of what it appears could be an extended fight, meanwhile, include some huge industry names, such as Victoria's Secret "Angel" Behati Prinsloo (married to singer Adam Levine) and prolific cover model Anna Ewers.
But what exactly occurred with the alleged poaching or "conspiracy designed to destroy" Men Women N.Y. by Elite Model was not before the Appellate Division, First Department.
Focusing on the issue at hand, the court ruled that the "provisional relief"—or preliminary injunction—against soliciting models that was granted last August by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Melissa Crane was later rightfully vacated by Crane because of Men Women N.Y.'s failure to timely commence an arbitration where issues of proof should be heard.
In a terse decision, a First Department panel quoted CPLR 7502(c), which, it wrote, "authorizes courts to award provisional relief 'in connection with an arbitration that is … to be commenced' where 'the award to which the applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without such … relief.'" The panel then noted that, "however, the applicant"—here, Men Women N.Y.—"is required to commence arbitration within 30 days of receiving the provisional relief."
That 30-day commencement did not happen in the breach of contract-based case launched early last August by Men Women N.Y. against Elite Model, past model managers from Men Women who landed at Elite Model, and two past Men Women executives now being accused of conspiring with Elite Model, wrote the panel.
"Although defendants' employment agreements also provide for provisional injunctive relief," the panel said, "the purpose of these provisions was not to create an independent right to such relief regardless of whether plaintiffs' underlying claims were ever actually arbitrated."
"Rather," wrote panel Justices Rolando Acosta, Dianne Renwick, Troy Webber and Ellen Gesmer, "the purpose of the injunctive relief clause here was to streamline the process of obtaining provisional relief in aid of arbitration by effectively conceding that the non-solicitation provisions [in employment contracts] were 'reasonable and necessary' and that breach would result in 'irreparable injury.'"
While referring to an argument made by Men Women, the unanimous panel wrote that Men Women "failed to demonstrate good cause to extend the time in which to commence arbitrations," and that "even if substitution of counsel would constitute good cause under other circumstances, it does not constitute good cause here, where the substitution came after the subject deadline had already expired and defendants had already moved to vacate" the preliminary injunction.
The underlying case, which made headlines in the New York Post and in a few fashion and entertainment-oriented publications last summer, is being fought tooth-and-nail by two major agencies.
They have lawyered up in New York to the hilt. Men Women and its current CEO Julia Haart at first retained Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and later switched to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, while Elite Model snared White Plains-based litigation boutique Denlea & Carton. At the same time, various individual defendants linked up with counsel including Reppert Kelly & Vytell in New Jersey and Manhattan-based firms Wrobel Markham, Davis & Gilbert, and Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer.
But it is the allegations flying back and forth that reveal how heated the litigation is. In the complaint lodged in Manhattan Supreme Court, for example, Men Women wrote that "the architects of this conspiracy are a competitor modeling agency and its principals, who, in an effort to avoid fair competition and sidestep the process of honest talent development, have engaged in a series of unlawful and deceitful actions aimed at stealing its rival's business."
"Between March and July 2019, seventeen [Men] Women [N.Y.] employees—including 16 model managers—as well as 55 models, have left," the complaint continues. It then claims that one of the individual defendants, Sergio Leccese—who is alleged to be a former CFO and COO at Men Women—worked in conspiracy with Elite Model and its principals "in a flagrant breach of his fiduciary duties … to chang[e] unilaterally [Men] Women [N.Y.]'s contracts to enable Women's models to cut ties with Women more easily."
The complaint also claims that "upon information and belief, some of the older men who currently lead ENY [Elite Model] have … condoned, facilitated or knowingly turned a blind eye to … exploitative conduct."
Firing back with its own allegations last August, Elite Model claimed in preliminary injunction opposition papers that Men Women's action "is the desperate publicity stunt of a struggling model management agency in an attempt to staunch the flow of its own self-inflicted wounds."
Elite Model's court filing also alleged that Men Women's "owner refers to the employees as 'cockroaches,' its senior management belittle the current CEO's temperament, experience and judgment, and an environment of fear and disrespect has permeated the agency. There is little wonder that a 'mass exodus' is taking place."
While denying breaching of contracts or conspiracy to raid models to its own camp, Elite Model also claimed that "plaintiffs' blatantly unclean hands betray the very interests which Plaintiffs profess to want to protect," arguing in part that Men Women, among other acts, has "waged a guerrilla campaign to poach models from rival agencies."
Crane, ruling in November to vacate her own preliminary injunction, was very direct with Men Women, according to transcript of a hearing before her.
Addressing the injunction issue, she said to the courtroom and plaintiffs, "CPLR 7502 (c) states that if an arbitration isn't commenced within 30 days any injunction is void. By not commencing arbitration then, plaintiff affected a coup on the underlying issues over which this court really has no say," and should be heard in arbitration.
"So all plaintiff had to do as a practical matter was to sit on its hands and the relief it sought would have been fait accompli," she said.
Alex Spiro, a lawyer for Men Women N.Y. and a Quinn Emanuel partner, could not be reached for comment.
Elite Model's counsel at Denlea & Carton, named partner Jeffrey Carton, also could not be reached.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSouthern District of New York Is Seeking New Clerk of Court
New York State Unified Court System Seeks Support Magistrates for NYC Family Court
Brooklyn DA Launches Virtual Currency Unit to Combat Crypto Fraud
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250