From Richard Freeman Esquire – Counsel for Direct Models and Derek Hay

Today, June 15, 2020, the State Labor Commissioner issued a Decision in the Matter of Jane Does 1-5 vs. Direct Models, Inc. and Derek Hay following a hearing conducted in September and November 2019.  In a 55 page Decision, the Hearing Officer rejected 3 of the 10 Claims brought by the five Adult Entertainers.  However, the Commissioner awarded an aggregate amount of $24,206.49 for various breaches of the Exclusive Agency Agreements of the five performers, holding both Direct Models and its Owner, Derek Hay liable for the award.

Direct Models and Derek Hay will immediately file an Appeal for ‘trial de novo’ in the Los Angeles County Superior Court where the entire matter will be re-adjudicated after full and complete pre-trial discovery is permitted and conducted (the Labor Commission Hearing proceeded with no pre-hearing discovery depriving Respondents of a meaningful opportunity to address the allegations and charges).  The filing of the Appeal renders this Decision moot.

Derek Hay and his Attorney are disappointed in the initial findings of the Labor Commissioner but are confident that Derek Hay and Direct Models will be completely vindicated after a full and complete opportunity to answer the allegations in an actual Trial (a jury trial) with all the witnesses and all the evidence heard according to the Superior Court rules of evidence.

From Derek Hay – Owner of Direct Models

Contrary to the claims of the counsel of the Jane Doe women, “that he never seeks to try a case in the media”, he has in fact done exactly that throughout, as have his clients in a voluminous amount of postings on this case on social media and statements to many and varied adult industry media. This was self-evident from the very outset, when AVN was informed that the suit existed, some 17 days prior to the suit being served to us, even before we ourselves were able to actually read it.

Nonetheless, this case will not be tried in the media, but ultimately will be heard and adjudicated in a fit and proper trial in Superior Court.

The hearing before the Labor Commissioner had no pretrial discovery, and it was therefore not possible to mount a meaningful defense, having no idea of the evidence that would be brought forth to support the charges, and not least of which, that much of the evidence brought forth was standalone testimony by the Jane Doe’s, unsupported by any relevant documentation or other evidence with which to support it, and much of which, would be classified as hearsay in any other courtroom.

Whilst we always felt it would be very difficult to get a fair trial and a favorable outcome in the administrative hearing, and the nature of the hearing, finding us always working from the back foot,  we are nonetheless very disappointed at this finding, as we do not feel that the counts found against us were sufficiently proven, whilst three of them were dismissed. That said – at the same time, we always knew that the ‘ trial de novo’ is the avenue through which we will have an opportunity to examine the evidence in detail before trial and with the benefit of the provision of documents including phone and financial records aforehand and for which we will be afforded the opportunity to have pre- trial depositions of the plaintiffs (under oath), that is the process, by which this case will ultimately be determined.

We are very confident that the decision of the ‘trial de novo’ will be contrary to that of The Labor Commissioner, and that the name of Direct Models and that of my own personally, will be cleared of such charges at the final outcome of that trial.