Lively v. Baldoni 25 - "All of This Because Abel Dared to Leave Jonesworks"

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:01 Clip: All rise. Court is now in session. Court is reconvened. I may be seated. Maintain order. The federal rise to face the jury and harken to its verdicts.

0:00:26 Lydia: This is Gavel Gavel. I don't know. I was like inspired by This is Sparta, but like also 300 is problematic. And so, yeah, I know.

0:00:35 Thomas: Timely, timely. Yeah. The movie is about as far along ago as the events that took place in the movie. Like it's about the same amount of time ago by now.

0:00:45 Lydia: That's me. Yeah, but I could just like picture us like we are evaluating all the lawsuits and then like kicking the Redditors who are annoying into, yeah. Yes, the bad arguments. Into the pit. Into to the pit.

0:00:52 Thomas: Ooh, the bad arguments. Oh, that too. Yeah, no, that would be better. That'd be more fun. You're just so violent. I'm a peaceful person. Um anyway it's Gavel Gavel hello everyone I almost said gavel pod but that's the patreon.com slash gavelpod is where you can go to have already heard this now no yes sort of yeah like if you're not a patron you would have already heard this if you were a patron but if youre a patron and hearing this for the first time youre like this is stupid move on I agree totally so anyway this is part three of jen abel's counter complaint were gonna get to more as we teased last time more of the breakup story, more of those claims. They're going to try. They'll try to drive home why they did what they did. We'll see how that goes for them. That's great for them, we'll see how they did."

0:01:04 Lydia: Did you forget the name of the show? What is time? And then we get to hear Thomas guess what the causes of action are going to be.

0:01:46 Thomas: Yeah, we're going get into those, but more importantly, next episode, as I keep teasing, because I just love, I can't wait to speak to MJ Morley. She's great. We're going to speak with MJ Morle. That'll be next episode. That when you can get a more expert, reliable view on the legal claims, but we take you through a lot of it, just the basics, so you're armed for that discussion. That's our agenda. So much fun. Can't wait to get to it. And there's still more after this. It's, ah, ah.

0:02:12 Thomas: This is a fun, I like this docket. I'll be honest, it's in my top one of dockets right now. Currently top one.

0:02:12 Lydia: Well, I mean, New York Times was your other option. So it's

0:02:20 Thomas: That was pretty fun, actually. When that was its own docket, it was probably my favorite. That one was so stupid.

0:02:25 Lydia: Yeah, it's a different beast.

0:02:25 Thomas: So stupid. This ist worlds less stupid than that. Can I say that? Like, as much as I think, Jen Abel doesn't really have a chance here, it's orders of magnitude less fucking stupid than the suit against the New York Times.

0:02:37 Lydia: I think that's fair.

0:02:38 Thomas: Oh, boy. But but it's still dumb. So where is it? We'll get to that analysis later, but for now we'll take our break, which you can avoid at patreon.com. And then we'll get through it.

0:02:53 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:02:53 Thomas: So it goes on and she's like, I like this. It was clear to Wayfarer and Jones largely did not hide that Jones considered them to be a lower prestige client and devoted her attention to clients such as Jeff Bezos and Tom Brady. I mean, relative to those two, you picked a bad two to be like, yeah, you're saying I'm a lower tier client than the, maybe the richest second richest person in the world yeah and and tom brady which is he's you know he's pretty big

0:03:10 Lydia: Some some of the richest people. Yeah. So in the wake of all of that, Jennifer Abel writes that Jones was desperate to keep her remaining clients. Given Abel's close relationship with Wayfair and Baldoni, Jones was undoubtedly concerned they would leave Jones Works alongside her, and she wanted to make sure that did not happen.

0:03:36 Thomas: Yeah well not for nothing that's like the contract you know in both of the contracts we've seen not only jen able can't take clients but also the clients aren't supposed to take jen abel like that's in all like so I get that she would be concerned but I also think that's a valid concern and she has every right to be concerned about that I don't understand yeah so then it talks about how this is when this You know, the It Ends With Us stuff started the speculation about the tension, blah, blah.

0:03:48 Lydia: As a business owner, yeah. And then in paragraph 82, Wayfaire and Baldini asked Abel to recommend a crisis management specialist. After consulting Consulting with Jones, who had no viable ideas, Abel recommended that Wayfarer and Baldoni engage crisis PR expert Melissa Nathan to assist in navigating these choppy waters. Abel had confidence in Nathan as they had worked together extensively in connection with a different JonesWorks client. The need for crisis PR expertise was particularly acute due to Lively's demand that Baldoni not be permitted to attend the premiere and the threat that Baldomi would be excluded from the press junket with the rest of the cast. Abel learned during her initial discussion with Nathan that, per her media contacts, a negative story was already being shopped around to multiple outlets, positioning Baldoni's religion as a cult and accusing Baldoni of having fat shamed lively after he asked her personal trainer in private about her weight due to his history of severe back pain.

0:04:51 Thomas: That's interesting. So we've seen this referenced a lot. We still don't know who it is. I mean, people like to just assume and say that was Leslie Sloan or that was Blake Lively. But all we have in here, she's not even saying that right here. This is her complaint. She's just saying a negative story was being shopped. Who knows? Maybe she'll say later. But like, that's the best she's got. A negative story about the Baldoni religion being a cult. Which kind of is and uh the fat shaming which is absolutely true but I mean I suppose if that was sloan if that was blake lively I suppose depending on the timing of everything that might be a little underhanded but they don't have any proof of that so I don't know but we sort of rewound a bit because this isn't after she was fired this is before so it seems kind of weird

0:05:32 Lydia: This is before. Mm hmm. This is like late July, early August, right when they retained Melissa Nathan and the agency group. I want to say early August.

0:05:40 Thomas: You remember too how we had that text that was like man you're right about melissa Nathan where Jen Abel was kind of like being fake about that. And, you know, fair enough if it's your boss and they're trying to get you to back you on something, then fair enough. And if we go back to Steph Jones' complaint, on August 8th, there's a text from Josh Greenstein, the president of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group, saying, Hey, Jen, been informed that you've been speaking to sites about bad blood between Blake and Justin. He was good on today's show. If a negative story breaks, it would hurt the movie. Josh Greenstein. Steph says Josh correctly believed that Abel was the person responsible for the story. I don't know if that's the very same story.

0:06:26 Thomas: Now to hear Steph Jones tell it, it's that they sort of planted this to cement the need for Melissa Nathan. And that was sort of that little bit elaborate scheme that actually ended up seeming somewhat plausible, though elaborate. So I don'T know, you know, that's early August. It seems like the president of Sony would have good reason to know that that was her, like the President of Sony, at least their movie, whatever thing it was. Yeah.

0:06:24 Lydia: Yeah I'm not sure yeah and for him to get involved

0:06:50 Thomas: I feel like that person's going to have some connections to maybe whatever media this is that she's actually talking to. And that president of Sony might have good information and not just like, oh, Steph Jones told him that. Because if it was Steph Jones that told him, then it feels like if I were him, I'd be like, well, that's your employee. Figure it out.

0:07:10 Thomas: You know? So maybe this is, I don't know. So it's interesting. Again, Again, I think Abel is so not trustworthy at all. Why don't you read paragraph 83?

0:07:08 Lydia: Yeah handle it yeah mm -hm yeah even though abel felt strongly that nathan was the right choice she knew that jones would be unhappy with the recommendation jones viewed nathan as a competitor and had a history of bad -mouthing her to anyone who would listen including to nathan's own clients out of sensitivity for these considerations abel advised the wayfarer team to remain open to other possible options and to decide after meeting Nathan themselves. Abel feared backlash from Jones but felt strongly that Nathan was the best option. When Jones learned that Wayfair was considering retaining Nathan, she was furious and immediately lashed out at Abel, pressuring her to disparage Nathan as a demonstration of loyalty to Jones. After initially pushing back, Abel eventually relented after Jones called her crying and screaming and engaged in some light disparaging of nathan to placate jones jones then attempted to derail the engagement and exploited confidential client information to convince wayfarer not to move forward with nathan

0:08:13 Thomas: But when did they start looking at Melissa and Nathan? Wasn't it July? Late July? Yeah.

0:08:15 Lydia: Yeah I would say end of july

0:08:18 Thomas: So right when we read this, I remembered, oh yeah, there was those texts where Abel was talking trash about Melissa and Ethan. But I go to look at those in Steph Jones' complaints. They're from April 5th. What? And what's funny is it's blanked out who they're to and from. Now that's in Jones' complaint. So maybe it is just from Jones, possibly. And she's blanking that out in her own interest, maybe. But I don't know. It sort of seems like it's somebody else.

0:08:47 Lydia: But they are from jennifer abel uh

0:08:49 Thomas: Yeah, so there's from, from, well, the first one is actually from blank, redacted to Jen Abel. MN kind of talks out of both sides of her mouth. And then Jen Abel back, caps, you think? And then she's a piece of shit. That's still Jen Able. Still Jen Abl. I honestly used to like her. And now I see her for how she really is. So like, that's in April, though.

0:09:10 Thomas: I don't see the timing of that. So I feel like the only purpose of this paragraph in Abel's complaint is like an apology to Nathan.

0:09:09 Lydia: That's crazy

0:09:18 Thomas: Like there's no other purpose for this. And so maybe it's the case that like maybe they took a look at Melissa Nathan earlier than that. And maybe at that point, Jen Abel allegedly was like bullied into peer pressured into talking shit on Melissa Nathan. Nathan. Otherwise, I don't know. Or is it related to that first thing? Remember when it was like they tried to hire her or she tried to do something with her?

0:09:18 Lydia: Yeah yeah exactly but wasn't that years prior when we looked into

0:09:44 Thomas: Yeah. So I don' t know. This is out of nowhere. We don' d know who it is. It could be Jones, but it' s kind of weird that it would be blanked out. So this feels like trying to explain it, but maybe just hoping Melissa Nathan is not a stickler for the dates, because otherwise it does not make sense.

0:09:56 Lydia: That yeah not looking at the dates yeah yeah right

0:10:00 Thomas: Because the way this paragraph 83 is written, this is all happening right when they' re looking to hire her okay and then 84 while he wayfarer's ceo acknowledged jones position he told her wayfarers would make its own decision after meeting nathan I think it's why don't you just keep reading

0:10:14 Lydia: Yeah. 85. Jones inserted herself into the mix in early August 2024, seeking to box out Nathan and Abel. The problem, however, was that Jones had chosen not to be privy to Wayfarer leadership's communication strategy or internal decision making, having long claimed to be too busy with higher profile clients. Wayfarers was fine with Jones' disengagement as Abel was their trusted advisor, and they had no interest in being a pawn in Jones' work's office politics. In addition, Jones had chosen to take a lengthy vacation in Europe during this critical period of the press campaign and premiere of the film. Even from afar, Jones' efforts were ham -fisted, unwelcome, and sporadic given her distance from Wayfair's day -to -day business. As Jones tried to stir up drama and undermine Abel's authority, Wayfaire and Baldoni were were focused solely on managing the crisis in front of them.

0:10:46 Thomas: 85 okay yeah yeah that she talked shit on and said wow a men's retreat during whatever okay there's no text or anything

0:11:17 Lydia: No. At the time, Lively's and Baldoni's teams had negotiated an uneasy truce in which neither side would participate in negative coverage of the other. Lively'S team had already broken that truce, no evidence, but the Wayfair team did not know that then. As far as they were concerned, it was best for Baldoni, Lively, and the film if both sides agreed to keep the peace the Wayfarer's team had to date been acting only in defense in responding to press inquiries. But on August 8th, 2024, Jones, in another desperate attempt to reinsert herself, contacted a Daily Mail reporter about a story they had published about Baldoni and Lively. She did so in direct violation of Abel's instruction not to talk to the press given the truce with Lively's team. Nonetheless, Jones bragged to Wayfair about trading calls with the Daily Mail in an effort to appear engaged on the account. Nathan and Abel were left to deal with the fallout.

0:12:06 Lydia: This blatant disregard of Wayfarer's strategy sparked a chain of unfortunate developments. Sloan and Sony learned that, purportedly, someone from Baldoni's team had been communicating negatively to media. It was clearly Jones, and Wayfarers' leadership was livid, as was Sony. All parties were desperate to prevent an all -out slugfest between Lively and Baldoni just as the film was about to be released to the world. With her reckless and unauthorized activities, Jones had made that scenario much more likely. In response, Wayfairer instructed Jones to cease all activities on behalf of Wayfaire and Baldoni for the time being and to let Abel and another Los Angeles -based JonesWorks employee, Matthew Mitchell, again, Mr.

0:12:06 Thomas: But what all right

0:12:44 Lydia: Mitchell, handle the crisis alongside Nathan.

0:12:47 Thomas: So this is that very thing I was talking about with jamie Heath going way way out on a limb and maybe if he's trying to just justify the decision to get out of the contract okay but it still seems questionable so let me spell this out for everybody because I'm sure it's confusing we've got Jen Abel accusing Steph Jones of having contacted the Daily Mail out of an effort to like stay involved and whatever meanwhile she's gone on a vacation so it's like already it's creating this inconsistent thing that doesn't like she's She's painting Jones as she's desperate. She's losing all her clients. She's whatever. Now she goes on a vacation, but she's still desperate to be involved. So she's contacting the Daily Mail. Like already, that just does not seem consistent to me at all.

0:13:30 Thomas: Like I am very skeptical of that account just because of its internal inconsistency. But OK, she's accusing Jones of having been the person to go to the Daily mail. Now, on the other side, we have Jones saying, no, it was Jen Abel. And also we had to quote the complaint on Abel's side. It was clearly Jones and Wayfarer's leadership was livid as was Sony. That's one side. Then we have Steph Jones saying, no, it was Abel.

0:13:55 Lydia: And here's the email when Sony reached out to.

0:13:56 Thomas: This is all nonsense. Yeah. Here's the actual evidence we have. We have Josh Greenstein, the president of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group saying, hi Jen, been informed you've been speaking to, you know, I already commented that. On Abel's side, we have no text messages, no emails, nothing in the complaint other than her assertion. And we interesting that Abel doesn't even use this. But in Steph Jones' complaint, we have the Jamie Heath most obvious lie in the history of lies, in my opinion. From Jamie Heath to Steph Jones, Tara Hanks, and Jen Abel. I am hearing from Sony that quote, and he types out the word quote, someone named Stephanie Jones has responded out to the Daily Mail saying that Blake is to blame and how this has escalated it all. We were purposely not responding to anything as to not fuel. This has fueled it. Everyone stand down unless I am aware of any moves. I don't care who Who is supposed to do what? I'm, and again, not interested in that. He said most, but I think it should be not. I'm interested only in any strategy being run by me. I need all to understand that. And then, and I'm repeating this from when we covered it, but it's such an obvious lie to me. So Steph Jones says, to clarify again, I have not spoken to Daily Mail.

0:15:07 Thomas: The above isn't true. I also don't believe Danny or Kim at Sony are saying that above. Quote also has spaces as if it was just being drafted. And I think that's her saying she is not copy and pasted, like, butI don't know. Steph Jones, I am not contacting press, but is concerning if Danny or Kim are saying that I have escalated this as I haven't even touched this. I'm going to contact them. And then Jamie Heath saying, Stephanie, as your client and the one pays for the services, I am stating to not contact anyone regarding Wayfarer or Sony at this time. If you do after this text, it will be a major problem. This needs to be respected now.

0:15:41 Thomas: So stupid. The biggest pile of bullshit I've ever seen. So I gotta say it feels pretty clearly at the very least it wasn't Steph Jones in my opinion like that that seems just so much more clear I can't say for sure that it was Jen Abel but it wasn't there's no way it was Steph Jones and this was such a pile of bullshit and it was either Jamie Heath because he's got some relationship with Jen Able or maybe just because he really wants to get out of that contract and now this is like a kind of an excuse for it but either way Jamie Heath is talking out his ass this is complete bullshit it absolutely is I've never never been more sure of anything in my life like this. It's just so obvious. So those are the two sides we have. And on Jen Abel's side, we have not a single text or email cited at all.

0:15:45 Lydia: I agree. Yeah yep. Yep. Right. Yeah.

0:16:22 Thomas: And on Jones's side we have those texts and it just seems very clear what's going on to me. What would be Jones's motivation? It doesn't even make any sense. Abel allegation is that she's just desperate to stay involved in the account, but that's weak to me doesn't like if she wanted to stay in the account, she would want to do things that they want. I mean, unless she's totally nuts, it doesn't make any sense so

0:16:44 Lydia: And it's not like they were the last remaining clients either. So if that were her motivation for getting involved with Wayfair more directly, there's plenty of other clients that she probably could have gotten more involved with directly too that wouldn't have been across the entire country, potentially. I know Tom Brady was still a client at that time too.

0:17:01 Thomas: Let's pick up on what 89 I think

0:17:03 Lydia: At this time, Nathan started hearing from other journalists that Sloan was planting negative stories about Baldoni and was under the impression that Baldoni's camp had broken the truce. Anxious Sony executives began reaching out to Wayfarer, seeking clarity. Yet Jones, panicked about being blamed, refused to be sidelined, insisting that she needed to contact Sony's and Lively's PR teams to clarify that she had not planted any negative stories about Lively. Heath told her not to do that, to which Jones responded that she could do, quote, whatever she wants to clear her name and that Wayfarers could not stop her from making calls.

0:17:25 Thomas: I mean honestly I'm on her side of that

0:17:38 Lydia: Desperate to salvage her reputation with Lively and Sony, Jones emailed a number of key Sony executives working on the film to declare that she was in Europe with, quote, her husband, partner at WME Jason Hodes, and placing all blame on, quote her team. In her attempt to save face, Jones ruptured her relationship with Wayfair and Baldoni or emails or whatever. Yeah.

0:17:56 Thomas: Yeah that's interesting I wish we saw actual texts because yeah whatever yeah emails yeah because abel's making it sound like because okay from the text we do have from steph jones's complaint you would think that's the continuation of that exchange oh are those emails maybe they're emails one way or the other from the messages jones doesn't include that later part okay fair enough but I would have assumed like if I were to complete the sentence there like if it's like like, okay, what do you think comes next in this exchange? With the knowledge that Steph Jones is going to not listen to Jamie Heath, I would think it'd be like, no, I'm going to contact them because that's definitely not what it sounds like. Like, there's no way they would believe that. But the way Abel tells it now, not only did Jones respond that she could do quote whatever she wants, which I kind of find that believable. If I got that message from Jamie, I'd be, like, this is the dumbest lie ever. Fuck off.

0:18:41 Thomas: Like I'm not gonna, I're not gonna let you slander me like this and not clear it with the people you're saying said that.

0:18:46 Lydia: Someone named Stephanie Jones. These people that she knows by name.

0:18:49 Thomas: But it is a little weird that she She says, Jones emailed a number of key Sony executives working on the film to declare that she was in Europe with, quote, her husband, partner, and Debbie and blah, blah, blah, and placing all blame on, quote her team. The only thing quoted is her team placing blame on her team, so that makes it sound like she's taking, she's taking accountability and saying, like admitting that it was their side that had talked to anybody, but I don't, that also seems weird.

0:19:15 Thomas: Like, I want to see those texts. I don'T really believe Abel necessarily, but yeah, it just seems weird to me.

0:19:14 Lydia: Yeah and I also think the accountability angle is interesting here too because like the way I would read that is letting Sony know like hey so sorry I've been traveling and just learning about this now I wasn't there to you know help guide my team in some of those decisions like that sounds like she's taking responsibility

0:19:38 Thomas: Yeah. Or, or actually I like this. Maybe that's her kind of backhanded way of doing the thing that she's wanting to do, which is say that this wasn't me by saying, Hey, been out of the office. You know, like I'm in, I'm In Europe.

0:19:50 Lydia: It could be both of those things yeah yeah

0:19:52 Thomas: That makes sense. That's my odds on favorite is she sent some message that kind of does both those things. Then Abel's selectively quoting from it. So I don't know. Okay. Now we get, this is interesting. I think we need to keep reading. Cause I think we're, we're getting toward important stuff. So why don't you just start reading from 91? One keep going here yeah I think

0:20:08 Lydia: 91 although Jones ultimately agreed to stand down Wayfair and Baldoni expressed that they had lost lost all trust in her. After parachuting in for self -interested reasons, nearly blowing up the truce with Lively's team, and lashing out when told to stop, Jones became a magnet for drama when it was least needed.

0:20:25 Thomas: So I just don't I just do not buy that framing but okay

0:20:29 Lydia: Also, also nearly blowingup the trucewithLively'steam, didn't they indicate that she did? Right.

0:20:33 Thomas: They just said that she did and admitted it and blamed her team but now it's like nearly

0:20:39 Lydia: Notably, on the same day Abel was terminated, August 21st, 2024, just hours after Abel's phone was seized, Leslie Sloan called Melissa Nathan. During that that call, Sloan told Nathan that Sloan had seen Nathan's text messages, which could only have come from Abel's phone, and that Nathan should expect to be sued.

0:20:57 Thomas: Very interesting sloan called nathan so I love that she's trying to make some hay out of it being just hours after seizing the phone it's Like you could also read that as hey the same day she got all the the evidence that you were the murderer she told someone you were the murderer it's like yeah

0:21:15 Lydia: Yeah, I mean, it could be that she reached out to Leslie Sloan and said, like, hey, I know that you guys had a truce that got ruined. I, you know, unfortunately, yeah, it's not me, but it was someone who worked for me.

0:21:22 Thomas: Yeah it wasn't me like I don't blame her I do not blame Jones for being like what the fuck is happening I didn't do this and now I have proof that it wasn't mean it was I guess she's blaming Nathan maybe but if this is Sloan calling Melissa Nathan now we don't have anything other than just Abel's word on this but she's kind of threatening Nathan to be sued so okay that's according to Abel.

0:21:46 Lydia: A September drew near, Wayfair and Baldoni, with the assistance of Abel and Nathan, continued their tireless efforts to promote the film, put out fires, and see the project through Stuing in jealousy towards Abel and resentment towards Wayfarer Baldoni, Jones clearly saw the writing on the wall. Knowing she would soon be terminated, Jones started taking steps transparently intended to make it harder to cut her loose. Those steps included sending email after unwelcome email to Heath and others long after their relationship had irrevocably ruptured, to lay the groundwork to contest that she had been detached and non -responsive for years. This was especially galling as Jones had been in Europe and largely incommunicado, save for a few texts of support to Baldoni prior to the premiere and then her disastrous efforts at self -preservation, for weeks during the critical month of August when the film premiered.

0:22:35 Thomas: Well, yeah, but she trusted Abel to be doing this account, right? First off, we still don't know if this is after she's fired, before she's fire, because like if this is leading up to the firing, and by the way, she knows that Abel is leaving.

0:22:39 Lydia: Yeah, she wants it both ways.

0:22:48 Thomas: It's not like she doesn't know Abel's leaving. And in her mind, in Jones's mind, it's like, well, she can't go take the client because that's against the contract.

0:22:48 Lydia: Yeah,

0:22:56 Thomas: Both contracts, by theway, both ways. So now that Abel, the person I've trusted to be on this account because Steph Jones is the owner, like Like, she's not working all the accounts all the time.

0:22:56 Lydia: Right, right.

0:23:06 Thomas: Now that she's leaving, maybe I'd better step in and get, like, pick up this account and get more involved. Like, that seems completely reasonable to me.

0:23:06 Lydia: Yeah, no, I agree.

0:23:22 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:23:22 Lydia: 94 is nonsense, but also,

0:23:24 Thomas: Yeah, I just keep reading. Yeah, we're almost done. Just let's read this from here on out.

0:23:24 Lydia: I'm gonna read it. All right. In contrast with Abel, who was loyal, trusted, and even tempered while working around the clock through the crisis, Jones seemed to be a walking disaster whose self -absorption, disloyalty, and insubordination had been a significant headache. Insubordination of the client?

0:23:41 Thomas: Insubordination? What? The owner of the... Yeah, insubordulation to Jamie Heath.

0:23:48 Lydia: Yeah.

0:23:49 Thomas: Stupid.

0:23:50 Lydia: Rather than accepting the end of the Wayfair relationship with professionalism and decorum,

0:23:53 Thomas: Why would it be the end of the Wayfarer relationship? Go on. Sorry. Yeah.

0:23:57 Lydia: Jones started threatening to sue, demanding exorbitant payment for work not done, and protesting that she had done an amazing job, and wanting the invoices to get paid based off of that contract. On information and belief, Jones stewed in resentment and indignity. Indignity!

0:24:05 Thomas: You mean being upset that they're violating and breaching the contract? Yeah, I would be too. Yeah, and the money they definitely owe you? Yeah.

0:24:18 Thomas: She's stewed in resentment and on information of belief, she's stewED in resentment. That's so dumb. Okay.

0:24:24 Lydia: Unable to bear the loss of another JonesWorks client, she set out to take revenge on Abel, Wayfarer, Baldoni, and Nathan, exploiting the data she had unlawfully accessed and stolen from Abel's phone. On information and belief, Jones turned over the contents of Abel'S phone to Lively and her team, without a subpoena. That didn't age well.

0:24:36 Thomas: No, no. Oh, that's weird. Yeah.

0:24:44 Lydia: So they could slice and dice her communications to construct a false narrative about the source of Lively's bad publicity.

0:24:51 Thomas: Or just use them.

0:24:52 Lydia: In turning over these materials to Lively, Jones knew full well that the blowback would engulf not only Abel, but also her clients, Wayfair and Baldoni.

0:25:00 Thomas: Are they her clients? Apparently they left.

0:25:01 Lydia: But they're not. They left, I thought, by that point. As a result of Jones's malicious scheme, Abel's life has been turned upside down. Her career and reputation have been destroyed, maybe because of the kind Yeah, her private information leaked and her email inbox and social media pages filled with a daily stream of death threats and abuse. The backlash against Wayfair and Baldoni has been equally devastating, with Baldoni wrongfully labeled as a sex pest, his accolades rescinded, and his future projects thrown into doubt. Jones still has all of Abel's private photos, text messages, and personal data, which Abel has every reason to believe Jones will further exploit to nefarious ends. Abel lives in fear of what Jones has in store for her and for what other client confidences Jones is willing to divulge in her fit of pique at Abel.

0:25:13 Thomas: Yeah, this is... If it isn't the consequences of your own actions. Okay. Okay.

0:25:53 Lydia: All of this because Abel dared to leave Jones Works. Yeah.

0:25:57 Thomas: Is it or is it because you bragged about stealing stuff from Jonesworks? This is, yeah, okay. Last paragraph until the causes of action. Here we go.

0:26:06 Lydia: Jones and Jones Works conduct is not only tortious in its own right, but also a brazen affront to the employment and labor laws of the state of California, which governed Abel's employment relationship with Jones Works and the termination thereof, and as a result, this very dispute.

0:26:21 Thomas: All right. I am excited for the cause. I have never, I've been so excited to hear the causes action. I don't know what they were. I'm in suspense. So what, I mean, it's hard to guess because I don' t know like too many causes of actions off the top of my head, but like if I'm to guess, um, something about the stealing the The phone, the private data, accessing whatever. Man, I do not know beyond that what she's going for.

0:26:31 Lydia: I know I was going to say. Yeah.

0:26:44 Thomas: Something reputational damage.

0:26:38 Lydia: Yeah. I mean, like, I'm surprised we have we have civil counterclaims right here. I'd be waiting for like like criminal charges, like like filing police reports. Yeah.

0:26:53 Thomas: Maybe like an intentional infliction of emotional distress. That's usually one to put in there. Maybe. I'm just trying, like, honestly, I haven't looked. I'm trying to guess, you know, if it's taking down her reputation, but it's not really slander. Oh, oh, is it along with the accessing the phone stuff? Would it be the, maybe not the defamation, but the other one where it's like the false light stuff? Maybe false light and visual privacy, but I just don't. I have to assume she's just going to allege breach of contract back the other way just somehow, but I don't know how. So like, all right, here we go.

0:27:11 Lydia: False light. Invasion of privacy. Hmm. Yeah, yeah. All right. First cause of action, declaratory relief under California Labor Code 925, which we talked about against Jones and Jones works.

0:27:27 Thomas: Declaratory what? Is that a one? What does that mean? I'm so disappointed.

0:27:35 Lydia: So 925. So declaratory relief. They're basically saying it's in the wrong forum that this needs to be governed by California law and needs to be adjudicated in California.

0:27:46 Thomas: That's a cause of action? Wouldn't that just be a way that you try to dismiss it? Huh, okay.

0:27:51 Lydia: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, they're just asking for declaratory relief.

0:27:54 Thomas: That seems weird to be the first cause of action in your counter. Am I crazy? I need to ask MJ this. I don't, I mean, I get it. This is the part where we might be in agreement with her if the California law should apply. So, but I just don't think of that as a counterclaim. I would think ofthat as like, here, motion to dismiss because this shouldn't even be here, right? But I don't know, maybe that's how the law works, but that's an MJ question or a lawyer question because I don' t get it. All right, so that's a dud. All right. At least for the show, for right now.

0:27:58 Lydia: That's probably the best thing that they have. Yeah. Right. Yeah yeah yeah.

0:28:24 Thomas: Like, I don''t know how to... Why don't you read the last three paragraphs of that one? It's kind of interesting.

0:28:29 Lydia: On or about March 17th 2025, Abel unequivocally informed Jones -Works that she had elected to void the 2021 employment agreement's choice of law

0:28:38 Thomas: That's three days prior to this. So after you've already been sued, after all that, it's literally three days before this complaint was filed. Okay. So she should have known that you would do that in the future before she filed the complaint two, three months ago before this. Okay.

0:28:40 Lydia: And forum selection provisions that violated Section 925.

0:28:47 Lydia: Yeah, unequividly informed. Yeah. Yeah." On information and belief, Jones -works contends that the restrictive covenants in her 2021 employment agreement are legal, valid, and enforceable because of the application of New York law, whereas such restrictive coVENants are flatly unlawful under the laws of the state of California. Yeah.

0:29:11 Thomas: Okay. Sure. That's not, doesn't this just seem like the wrong, I can't wait to ask a lawyer about this because this just seems like the right thing to do. The wrong place for this. I might fully be in agreement with her, by the way, if it's like they say it should apply New York law. I say it Should be California law. Isn't that a battle to be fought like in a motion dismiss or in something else? It just seems weird to be like on information. Yeah, it's like I'm going to say this should be dismissed on information and belief. They're going to disagree with me.

0:29:30 Lydia: Seems weird to be in the counterclaims. Yeah.

0:29:37 Thomas: It's like, what? I don't look. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems bizarre to me. Okay.

0:29:42 Lydia: Yeah, well, you're going to be disappointed in the second cause of action as well. It's now violation of California Labor Code 925.

0:29:44 Thomas: Oh, come on. Give me a. Okay. That sounds more like something. What is it?

0:29:52 Lydia: It's the same thing. It says that, well I guess we're getting at something a little different here. So we still have that March 17th, 2025, Abel told JonesWorks she's voiding that choice of law and form selection And then it says, yeah, pursuant to California Labor Code 925, Abel requests that the court adjudge the foregoing unlawful provisions void and order that this matter be adjudicated in California and that such proceedings be governed by the laws of California.

0:29:55 Thomas: Oh, yeah. Okay. But it's a little late, don't you think? Think? Okay. Maybe that's how you fucking do it, but it just seems weird.

0:30:22 Lydia: And then here, paragraph 114, because Abel has been forced to bring this action to secure her rights under Section 925. Abel is entitled to injunctive relief and an award of reasonable attorney's fees in connection with these proceedings. Yeah.

0:30:33 Thomas: All right. I mean, that's possible. I don't know, but just, just seems rude to me. Okay, third cause. Can we get something, some meat on these bones?

0:30:40 Lydia: No.

0:30:40 Thomas: Third cause of action.

0:30:42 Lydia: Declaratory relief. Restraints of trade.

0:30:44 Thomas: Oh, come on. Give me something.

0:30:46 Lydia: Yeah. Boring.

0:30:46 Thomas: All right. So this is still, yeah, it's like, okay, maybe she's right, but this, it looks like it's still, okay. Okay again.

0:30:51 Lydia: This is the non -compete, non -solicitation provisions. But didn't we

0:30:55 Thomas: I, don't, how is that a cause of Action? I don, it was signed before before the law was passed.

0:30:57 Lydia: And didn't we also discuss about how the non compete was? Yes, exactly. Yeah, OK. Paragraph 120. However, California law is clear that restrictive covenants of the kind contained in the 2020 and 2021 employment agreements are void and unenforceable and impermissibly interfere with Abel's ability to engage in her chosen lawful profession, yada, yadda, yedda.

0:31:18 Thomas: I would see this as a defense to Jones's claims. Yes, I signed those, but the California law voided those, which I think is valid. Jones is like, hey, you violated this non -compete. I think it's fully reasonable. And I would probably even be on Abel's side to say, nah, I'm in California. It doesn't apply, but it's not, that's not a cause of action against Jones, is it? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

0:31:40 Lydia: Yeah, so they're asking here for a judicial declaration to determine her rights and obligations given JonesWorks' initiation of litigation.

0:31:44 Thomas: Okay. All right. Just legally speaking, Speaking, I don't get what's happening here. I can't wait to find out what this is because I don'T get it. All right. Fourth cause of action. Can we get something real?

0:31:57 Lydia: Unfair competition in California business and professions code, subsection 17200.

0:32:03 Thomas: We've got here.

0:32:04 Lydia: Same kind of stuff.

0:32:06 Thomas: Paragraph 132. Abel contends that Jones and Jones works acts and practices have harmed her. Okay. In that she was required to submit to an out -of -state choice of law and forum in violation of the laws of California and has been unduly burdened in the exercise of her right to participate in her lawful chosen profession, profession, including the increased risk and expense of such participation. What? Boy, I wish I could just summon MJ right now. Do you think if we chant MJ hard enough? Yeah, like, can she just be here in this call?

0:32:30 Lydia: I know our portal's down yeah yeah

0:32:36 Thomas: Because like forcing her to submit to a choice of venue thing is not, what's the damages of that? That isn't a thing where you're like, ow, you hurt me. I had to submitto a choiceof jurisdiction, choiceof venue. Yeah, no, the thing you do is when you go to do that, and this happens every day, you You file something in that docket being like, this is the wrong place.

0:32:43 Lydia: I had to file my paper with the wrong state

0:32:59 Thomas: It's a threshold question. Restitution of all amounts wrongfully obtained by Jonesworks and Jones as a result of the aforementioned conduct? What?

0:32:59 Lydia: Yeah

0:33:09 Thomas: The legal fees, I think, I guess. If she was subject to a non -compete or Jonesworks tried to subject her to that, the thing you would do is say, nope, doesn't apply to me. That's not true. And you would go compete. And then it's up to Jones to sue. And it's Up to You to say, nuh -uh. But if you just like didn't compete, then later you're saying, well, first off you did, but like, but then you're saying, ow, they harmed me by subjecting me to a non -compete.

0:33:08 Lydia: Yeah unclear unclear yeah by telling me I couldn't

0:33:40 Thomas: Even though I haven't won on the choice of law, it seems like you're also like skipping that part where, you know, like you haven't prevailed yet, even though again, I think I'm on her side. Yeah, it's just, it'S fucking weird spaghetti.

0:33:49 Lydia: This is spaghetti this is spaghetti at the wall yeah yeah

0:33:53 Thomas: It's not even, there's also some like paper in it and some other stuff. It's like our kids making pretend food. Spaghetti. It's not even real.

0:33:59 Lydia: Then we get to the fifth cause of action which is violation of California Labor Code Section 432 .5, which I was like, oh, OK, what's what's going to be here?

0:34:09 Thomas: Oh, is this something? Yeah. Are we, do we get something?

0:34:11 Lydia: So this section in paragraph 140 provides no employer or agent, manager, superintendent or officer thereof shall require any employee or application for employment to agree in writing to any term or condition which is known by such employer or Agent, Manager, Superintendent or officer thereof to be prohibited by law.

0:34:29 Thomas: There's no way that you would say that about Jones.

0:34:32 Lydia: It was a 2021 employment agreement. Yeah.

0:34:35 Thomas: And in Jones's state, it wasn't prohibited by law. Good luck proving whatever that is. Okay. Can we get a straightforward something?

0:34:43 Lydia: Yes. Yes, yeah.

0:34:43 Thomas: Six cause of action. Oh, here we go. Invasion of privacy.

0:34:47 Lydia: Invasion of of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion.

0:34:48 Thomas: Intrusion upon seclusion. Oh, wow. That's a, I like that it rhymes. Okay. So maybe this is one we can actually understand without talking to a lawyer. Hmm.

0:34:55 Lydia: Jones and Jonesworks intentionally invaded the private affairs of Abel by accessing, copying, disseminating, and publicizing the contents of her personal cell phone, including without limitation her private communications, personal photos, contact list, financial information, and other personal electronic data. I have not seen any of that

0:35:07 Thomas: Sorry did they publicize photos contact list financial information I guess the first word there was accessing okay they accessed it but did they okay maybe they copied it you could say that disseminating and publicizing that they didn't do when it comes to photos contact list financial information now if you want to say that if they are going to live and die by the there was no subpoena and therefore everything that jones shared with blake lively was therefore like like unauthorized access and sharing of personal stuff. I suppose that's their theory, but it feels to me like there's 43 things wrong with that. And this, we already talked to MJ about. That's not your personal cell phone.

0:35:54 Thomas: That's the work phone. And it was a valid subpoena. We know that now. In fairness, this complaint came out before that subpoena, or while the subpoenas still not public, this complaint came out before the fact that it was like Van Zandt, like before all that was clear. So fair enough. But like that's two I think pretty solid steps that make this bullshit and at the time she didn't know about one of them but she did know about the other one that it was a work phone like she admits it's a workphone she talks about how they had agreed to like turn it you know like there's no she's not disputing that was work phone so how does she just say it's her personal cell phone now like how does she just assert that after her own complaint admitted I'm gonna go ahead and say that's sort of what I predicted on one of them. Look at the seventh one. Ready?

0:36:39 Lydia: Yeah, invasion of privacy, false light. All right.

0:36:41 Thomas: Woohoo. Ding, ding, ding. All right. I definitely win with that one. I swear to God, I didn't look at these. We do this in the moment. So we got that one, so I think that sixth cause of action is the first one that I can understand that's not related to California labor law, confusingly. It seems totally wrong to me, but again, we'll talk to MJ or somebody. Seventh, invasion of privacy. Okay, now let's see. Is this one essentially the same as the one above?

0:37:04 Lydia: Close. So as alleged herein Jones and Jonesworks publicly disclosed information or material regarding Abel's moral character and personal and professional life which showed Abel in a false light the false light created by these disclosures was highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person in Abel's position in that it made Abel an object of scorn, pity, ridicule, humiliation, and other suffering. So, you know, here we have trying to hit all the elements of invasion of privacy false light.

0:37:31 Thomas: I guess this one, maybe if I'm doing prediction mode, I could see maybe this survives a motion to dismiss. I can't comment on the California labor law one. I have absolutely, I don't understand those. So maybe they will, maybe they won't. I'm not saying that they won'T. This one, I guess if you're alleging, and again, surviving a motion to dismiss, we know that the judge basically construes all the facts in your favor. So if Abel's able to say they spread false stuff based on these private things and it definitely made Abel an object of scorn, like I could maybe see this surviving a motion to dismiss.

0:38:04 Lydia: Right.

0:38:04 Thomas: I'm not sure. I think the counter argument would be pretty solid that like, no, that didn't happen. We just responded to a subpoena. Like, right. I mean, that seems pretty solid, but who knows?

0:38:13 Lydia: Eighth cause of action.

0:38:14 Thomas: I won again.

0:38:16 Lydia: Intentional infliction of emotional distress. It's a gimme. Yeah.

0:38:17 Thomas: That was kind of the blank space in the middle, but still, I I mean, give me credit. Yeah. Free space. Yeah, nothing really specific. I think it is just incorporating everything they already said and saying that caused me emotional distress.

0:38:21 Lydia: The free space. Yeah, yeah.

0:38:29 Thomas: Okay. Oh, I should have gotten this ninth one.

0:38:31 Lydia: Ninth cause of action.

0:38:31 Thomas: This was like a companion to the free space.

0:38:35 Lydia: Negligent infliction of emotional stress. Yeah yeah yeah.

0:38:37 Thomas: Darn it. Ah, okay. I'll live and learn for next time.

0:38:41 Lydia: Tenth cause of action. Promissory fraud.

0:38:44 Thomas: Promissory fraud. Okay. Well, that's interesting. That's like with the New York Times one.

0:38:48 Lydia: So we get some new information here.

0:38:49 Thomas: Yeah, let's go through this because this is kind of coming out of nowhere.

0:38:52 Lydia: As alleged here and above, Abel joined Jonesworks during the COVID-19 pandemic when Jonesworks physical offices were closed. Since it was expected that Abel's personal cell phone would be utilized for work -related activities, Abel requested that Jonesworks port her personal cell number to the Jonesworks cellular plan to cover the costs, especially given the number of international clients on whose behalf she would be working.

0:39:13 Thomas: Wait, Abel requested it?

0:39:15 Lydia: Yeah.

0:39:16 Thomas: What? Oh, come on. You got to be kidding. So I nailed the prediction of this is on their Verizon plan has to be, even though that's so insane. I guess it was obvious, but it's also so insane that I don't get it. But now she's admitting that she requested that jones oh my god to your point I know I think you said this just get a reimbursement man just get a fucking reimburse what are you talking about Jen Abel. What I

0:39:39 Lydia: Also, they could just, like, ship you a phone.

0:39:42 Thomas: I was doing I was doing Jen Abel a favor. I was assuming, and I don't know if I said this explicitly: I was assuming that Stephanie Jones or Jonesworks was a little bit weird and was like hey no let me just put the number on our uh plan you know like maybe maybe as like I was even I I was fully just assuming that because otherwise this is so fucking insane. I was assuming that because maybe the allegations that Jones is a little controlling, maybe they're right. And so I was assuming, yeah, OK, maybe maybe Steph Jones kind of tricked Abel into doing this a little bit. But no, she's admitting in this. Abel requested that Jonesworks port her personal cell phone number to the Jonesworks cellular plan to cover the costs, especially given the number of international clients. Just get my dude. Just get a reimbursement.

0:40:26 Thomas: Just get reimbursed. I like come on. Oh, here we go. Yeah, keep going.

0:40:25 Lydia: And Just to further show what kind of change this was going to be, too, Jones agreed. But due to JonesWorks' exclusive use of iPhones, Abel was required to replace her personal Android with a company -issued iPhone. So then that tells me her iCloud that is tied to it, she didn't have iPhones the entire time. So it's only stuff that happened within this particular period of time.

0:40:47 Thomas: Come on yeah I know unless she specifically transferred everything from her android irretrievably and permanently over to the equivalent iphone thing threw her android into the fires of mount doom this is oh my god you've got to be kidding me with this

0:41:09 Lydia: I think she kind of ruined a lot of her case earlier with this one paragraph. Yeah.

0:41:13 Thomas: You have got yeah with like with this one thing we had we have gone through so much and finally we get to the truth by her own admission that she was an android user probably had all her other shit personal shit on android specific stuff google stuff whatever oh my god I already knew she was full of shit about that but now she's admitting it come on I think it's worth reading this is all revelatory so keep uh keep reading

0:41:37 Lydia: After Abel announced her intention to resign in or around July 2024, Jones and Jonesworks repeatedly reiterated their promise that upon Abel's departure and return of her iPhone, phone, Jonesworks would immediately release her personal phone number and facilitate and ensure Abel's continued and exclusive access to her personal information and data, including without limitation private communications, contacts, personal photos, and financial information.

0:42:02 Thomas: It okay it would be nice to cite a contract or something but I guess if it's promissory fraud

0:42:07 Lydia: I think it might just be the texts between her and the chief of staff. It's not Jones, but it is a representative of Jonesworks indicating that they would release her phone number.

0:42:17 Thomas: Yeah but I guest what I'm saying is like if the promissary fraud was back Because she says, join JonesWorks during COVID -19 pandemic, blah, blah. So she's making it out like, back then they tricked me into doing this. They tricked me Into asking them to do this. I would read that as like, yeah, back then they promised that I would retain the actual phone number, you know? But then, now it's jumped to like, after she resigns, then they promise. And so therefore, the amount of time that she didn't have, it would just be that, I mean, she alleges it's like a couple months, you Know? Yeah.

0:42:36 Lydia: Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, but now it's jumped to present day. Yeah well she She alleges that it's a couple months to regain access to all of her accounts. But that doesn't mean that it was a couple of months to get to be able to sign into her bank account.

0:42:58 Thomas: When did she actually get her phone number back? The sign to the bank account thing is just fucking bullshit. There's no way. Okay. This seems so stupid. If they made a promise to give her phone member back and there was a delay from when she got it back of, let's say for the sake of argument a month, what's the damages associated with that? Maybe it's something, but what?

0:43:17 Lydia: How would you even figure that out? You'd be like, yeah, a number of people weren't able to contact me.

0:43:20 Thomas: I don't know. Like I missed a call that yeah, publisher's clearing house was going to word me with a big check if they could only get ahold of me through this phone number. Yeah. I, you know, like I'm not saying it's, I'm not saying nothing. I'm, I've not saying like, yeah, it is annoying if they were kind of shitty about that. It's not nothing, but I, what is it?

0:43:29 Lydia: A long lost relative tracked me down for my inheritance, but I only had, you know, five days to to accept it. Yeah.

0:43:45 Thomas: Like, I don't, I don' even know what that would be.

0:43:47 Lydia: I don't know either. Like, it's annoying. And an inconvenience but what has it hurt there you go

0:43:52 Thomas: Oh, let's see. Okay. 187 as a direct and proximate result of the above described conduct, Abel was harmed. What?

0:44:00 Thomas: Abel's reliance on Jones and Jonesworks promise was a substantial factor in causing her harm. Upon information belief, Jones Jones and Jonesworks were aware that the other, the other? Jones and what?

0:44:07 Lydia: Yeah it's funny because like they also have said like jones and jones works are one in the same

0:44:10 Thomas: Yeah. We're aware that the other plan to commit the tort of promissory fraud against Abel and agreed with one another and intended that the wrongful acts pleaded herein be committed. Accordingly, Jones and Jonesworks are equally liable to Abel for the tortof promissary fraud by reason of their conspiracy to committhe tort.

0:44:31 Lydia: Because yeah so so she says that the owner the owner of jonesworks conspired with herself via her company

0:44:38 Thomas: Ooh, and here we go. 190. Jones and and Jones works engaged in the above alleged conduct with oppression, fraud, and malice. Accordingly, Abel is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be proven at trial. I don't know how you can just say she was harmed. Like, I don'T, I remember our episodes with Anne about the promissory fraud with the, with New York Times, where I'm pretty sure she was like, yeah, you gotta, you got to say how you were harmed. You can't be like, it's like the, uh, the hate crime thing with the office. I always quote, like it was a hate crime. How was it a hate prime?

0:45:12 Lydia: Well I hated it yeah

0:45:12 Thomas: Well, I hated it. It's like you can't, you gotta, there's gotta be actual damage. That seems terrible. All right, 11th. Here we go.

0:45:18 Lydia: Wait so we're going out with a bang

0:45:20 Thomas: Oh, spoilers. This is the last one. Don't tell me that.

0:45:21 Lydia: This is the last no bit but you're You're going to love it. False imprisonment.

0:45:26 Thomas: Okay, here we go, let's see.

0:45:28 Lydia: Jonesworks and its officers, directors, employees, and agents deprived Abel of freedom of movement by use of physical barrier, force, threat of force, menace, and or unreasonable duress as alleged herein. As a result, Abel was restrained, confined, and detained from leaving Jonesworks Los Angeles office for an appreciable time.

0:45:47 Thomas: An appreciable time. How much time? Never said. Not ever stated.

0:45:52 Lydia: Sounded like they wanted her to leave as soon as possible from even her own counter complaint

0:45:56 Thomas: Yeah, we know that she was at Verizon for half the fucking day, so we know it couldn't have been longer than like three hours max.

0:46:00 Lydia: Yeah abel did not at any time consent expressly or impliedly to jones works restraint confinement or detention of her there's an off -boarding meeting and like

0:46:12 Thomas: Yeah, and like freedom of, I can imagine, I'm trying to imagine like some not stupid version of this. Like, oh, it's so dumb. On one hand, I could see like if security of some business like abducted you in their business and locked you in a room. Sure. I could See that being something, but you also don't have the freedom to move throughout someone's business.

0:46:14 Lydia: Turning in your work your work assets I'm sorry this is so crazy yeah

0:46:37 Thomas: However you want, like that can't be right. I guess you'd need to have the Freedom to leave. But is there any proof that she asked them to go or she, you know, because like the way she alleged it, it's like, oh, I just went along with it. It's like well, okay. I mean I don't think in this context that could mean you were imprisoned. I don'T think like without any threat of force, without any anything, without anytime where you tried to call 911, without ANY of that this is just an off -boarding meeting with security because you stole from the fucking company.

0:46:46 Lydia: That yeah that she wanted to leave yeah

0:47:06 Thomas: I do NOT think you're gonna win on this one.

0:47:06 Lydia: You know what this reminds me of is uh if anyone is listening to this that also listens to where there's woke when we talked about scott gerber and his uh the way that he framed when he was being escorted to the dean's office and asked to leave for the day he said that like law enforcement came in and like

0:47:24 Thomas: Touched his arm or something. Oh.

0:47:24 Lydia: Well that was the dean uh he yeah he sued a fellow professor who was serving as the dean at the time for assault because he touched his shoulder

0:47:39 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:47:39 Thomas: And then we're getting this at like Like we get the same thing as last one. Are we on 195? Might as well finish it out here.

0:47:44 Lydia: Yeah upon information and belief jones and jones works were aware that the other planned to commit the tort of false imprisonment against Abel and agreed with one another and intended that the wrongful acts pleaded herein be committed. Accordingly, Jones and Jonesworks are equally liable to Abel for the tort of false imprisonment by reason of their conspiracy to commit the tort conspiracy.

0:47:51 Thomas: What?

0:48:04 Lydia: Jones and Jamesworks engaged in the above alleged conduct with oppression, fraud and malice. Accordingly Abel is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages and an amount to be proven at trial.

0:48:13 Thomas: This seems weird to me. On one hand, I guess what she's saying is Jones is acting as an individual and then the chief of staff is acting as an agent of Jones works and therefore they're like collaborating and conspiring. But like, I don't what I how why wouldn't it be looked at legally as just Jones is acting as Jones works as well? It seems weird to like allege a conspiracy because you get to say Jones was just being her as a person, but the other people were acting as Jonesworks.

0:48:41 Lydia: We did.

0:48:41 Thomas: That doesn't make any sense to me. Like, why wouldn't you also say, yeah, that chief of staff guy, it's a conspiracy between him personally and Jonesworks as a company. Like I don't, it doesn't, I am skeptical of that construction. I don'T think that that's going to work, but I don' t know. Wow. We got through it. That was, that was weird. So, okay. Well, I don't know about the labor law stuff. We've got to talk to an expert. Maybe there's something there. I don'T know. I still don't think, I still don't Think it gets her out of a lot of it. Like the stuff she did seems unambiguously to violate the contract in many ways that are still totally safe from the California thing.

0:49:18 Thomas: So if she wins on the California choice of venue thing, which I wouldn't be that upset about that. I think that's reasonable. Then at best, I think she would get out of the non -compete, But that only applies to after she's gone. And I don't even remember. Let's go. Actually, let's go back and look at I'm going to look at the causes of action on Jones's complaint. The first one is breach. And it's not just based on like a non -compete. It's based on stuff she did while there. Second one is tortious interference. And that doesn't apply because that's Nathan Wayfair and Baldoni. Third one is breech of contract against Wayfaire. Fourth one is tortuous interference with the Wayfairy contract against Jen Abel and Melissa and Nathan. And that is about them inducing them to leave during. Yeah. So like that's not a non -compete.

0:50:04 Thomas: Fifth cause, faithless servant. This one was interesting. That was the one I think where you can get back the pay while she was working, but not in the interest of the company kind of thing.

0:50:12 Lydia: But nothing to do with compete. Yeah right.

0:50:13 Thomas: Sixth one. Nope. Six one. And it's that one very specifically is while she's in the company. Sixth, one is breach of fiduciary duty. That would also be why she's within the company seventh one is defamation. Eighth one is deformation.

0:50:24 Lydia: And And that's it.

0:50:25 Thomas: The non -competes does not even even come into play. I mean, maybe it was one of the small sub things of one of the breach things.

0:50:32 Lydia: Oh, yeah. I do see it here in paragraph 110, directly competing with Jonesworks in the six months following her departure from Jonesworks, including by starting a competing company and poaching and attempting to poach Jonesworks clients.

0:50:43 Thomas: So in that breach of contract, it's a component of that breach -of -contract, for sure. But also within that breach contract is holding confidence, the information, not using the company information to solicit and dues, which I think that's still solid. And it's true. Okay, so that's where the non -compete is. Fair enough. It's in that one element of the breach -off -contact.

0:51:02 Lydia: Right. And again, we would be talking about six months. So what would be, if that claim were to go Jennifer Abel's way, what would be the damages associated with six months? But she competed anyway. So wouldn't they just throw it out?

0:51:16 Thomas: Yeah, I think Jones will maybe lose on that. I still think think she has an okay argument if she's in New York and whatever but like if the California law says this can't be in effect unless you signed it away with the presence of an attorney it can't be in fact then I mean I'll go I'll for that with Abel but then she would still have the other parts of the breach of contract and literally every other cause of action so I'm down for that I'm down for like parts of that to be dismissed or maybe what would happen is you dismiss that first cause of Action but allow them to amend it to take out the non -compete thing because it's not like maybe I'll go for that. Nothing else has anything to do with stuff that wouldn't be allowed by the California law, right?

0:51:57 Lydia: Not by my reading, no.

0:51:58 Thomas: All right. Well, I can't wait to talk to a lawyer about these very specific questions. That was fun. I enjoyed that. We've got more of this docket to go through until we eventually talk to Steph Jones's lawyers. There's going to be way too much to talk about, but I will be excited to talk with them about something. We'll see.

0:52:14 Thomas: This was fun to say. If I'm wrong, I will absolutely be.

0:52:39 Lydia: You'll eat your hat.

0:52:39 Thomas: I'm not a lawyer. Absolutely. Absolutely. Right. Yum, yum, yum.

0:52:45 Lydia: Intrusion upon seclusion. Yeah.

0:52:45 Thomas: Intrusion upon seclusion. Oh. Engaged in the above alleged, above alleged dash. Is that right? Above alleged conduct, hyphenate above alleged conduct.