•ibBijiBMV]JS 44C/SDNY

REV. 5/2010

12 CIV 2551CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by theJudicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet.

APZ 0 3

PLAINTIFFS

Jonathan Sobel

ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER

Georges G. Lederman, Esq., 52 Duane Street, 7th FloorNew York, NY 10007, (212) 374-9160

201?

DEFENDANTS

William Eggleston, Winston Eggleston, William Eggleston

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

John R. Cahill, Esq., Lynn & Cahill LLP58 West 40th Street, New York, NY 10018, (212) 719-4400

CAUSE OF ACTION (cite the u.s. civil statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause)(DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)

Diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1). Violation of New York's Arts & Cultural Affairs Law.

Has this or a similar case been previously filed in SDNY at anytime?No? [7] Yes? • Judge Previously Assigned

If yes, was this case Void Invol. Q Dismissed. NoD Yes D If yes, give date & Case No.

(PLACEAN [x] IN ONE BOXONL Y) NATURE OF SUIT

ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES

TORTS FORFE TURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY []610 AGRICULTURE [ J422 APPEAL [ I 400 STATE

CONTRACT [ ]620 OTHER FOOD & 28 USC 158 REAPPORTIONMENT

[]310 AIRPLANE [ ]362 PERSONAL INJURY- DRUG [ 1423 WITHDRAWAL [J 410 ANTITRUST

t ] 110 INSURANCE []315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT MED MALPRACTICE [)625 DRUG RELATED 28 USC 157 [J430 BANKS & BANKING

[ ] 120 MARINE LIABILITY []365 PERSONAL INJURY SEIZURE OF [J450 COMMERCE

[ ]130 MILLERACT [ ]320 ASSAULT, LIBEL & PRODUCT LIABILITY PROPERTY []460 DEPORTATION

[ ] 140 NEGOTIABLE SLANDER []368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL 21 USC 881 PROPERTY RIGHTS []470 RACKETEER INFLU

INSTRUMENT [ ]330 FEDERAL INJURY PRODUCT [ ]630 LIQUOR LAWS ENCED & CORRUPT

[ ]150 RECOVERY OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY [ )640 RR STRUCK [ ] 820 COPYRIGHTS ORGANIZATION ACT

OVERPAYMENT & LiABiLrnr [ J650 AIRLINE REGS [ 1830 PATENT (RICO)

ENFORCEMENT OF []340 MARINE PERSONAL PROPERTY ( 1660 OCCUPATIONAL [ J840 TRADEMARK [ ] 480 CONSUMER CREDIT

JUDGMENT []345 MARINE PRODUCT SAFETY/HEALTH []490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV

[ ] 151 MEDICAREACT LIABILITY []370 OTHER FRAUD [ ]690 OTHER [1810 SELECTIVE SERVICE

[ ] 152 RECOVERYOF [ ]350 MOTOR VEHICLE []371 TRUTH IN LENDING SOCIAL SECURITY N850 SECURITIES/

DEFAULTED [ ]355 MOTOR VEHICLE [ )380 OTHER PERSONAL COMMODITIES/

STUDENT LOANS PRODUCT LIABILITY PROPERTY DAMAGE LABOR [ I 861 HIA (1395ff) EXCHANGE

(EXCL VETERANS) [ ]360 OTHER PERSONAL [ J 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE [ ] 862 BLACK LUNG (923) []875 CUSTOMER

[ ] 153 RECOVERY OF INJURY PRODUCT LIABILITY []710 FAIR LABOR [ I 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) CHALLENGE

OVERPAYMENT OF STANDARDS ACT [ ]864 SSID TITLE XVI 12 USC 3410

VETERAN'S BENEFITS [I 720 LABOR/MGMT [ ] 865 RSI (405(g)) K1890 OTHER STATUTORY

[ ] 160 STOCKHOLDERS SUITS RELATIONS ACTIONS

[ 1190 OTHER CONTRACT []730 LABOR/MGMT []891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS

[ ] 195 CONTRACT PRODUCT REPORTING & FEDERAL TAX SUITS [ I 892 ECONOMIC

LIABILITY DISCLOSURE ACT STABILIZATION ACT

[ ]196 FRANCHISE [ 1740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT [ ] 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or [ ]893 ENVIRONMENTAL

ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES [J790 OTHER LABOR Defendant) MATTERS

LITIGATION [ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY []894 ENERGY

CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS [1791 EMPL RET INC 26 USC 7609 ALLOCATION ACT

REAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT []895 FREEDOM OF

[]441 VOTING []510 MOTIONS TO INFORMATION ACT

[ ]210 LANDCONDEMNATION []442 EMPLOYMENT VACATE SENTENCE IMMIGRATION [ J 900 APPEAL OF FEE

[ ] 220 FORECLOSURE [J443 HOUSING/ 20 USC 2255 DETERMINATION

[ ] 230 RENT LEASE& ACCOMMODATIONS [ J530 HABEAS CORPUS [J462 NATURALIZATION UNDER EQUAL ACCESS

EJECTMENT [ ]444 WELFARE []535 DEATH PENALTY APPLICATION TO JUSTICE

[ ] 240 TORTS TO LAND [J445 AMERICANS WITH [ J 540 MANDAMUS & OTHER []463 HABEAS CORPUS- [ I 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY

[ ] 245 TORT PRODUCT DISABILITIES - []550 CIVIL RIGHTS ALIEN DETAINEE OF STATE STATUTES

LIABILITY EMPLOYMENT []555 PRISON CONDITION [J465 OTHER IMMIGRATION

[ ] 290 ALLOTHER []446 AMERICANS WITH ACTIONS

REAL PROPERTY[ )440

DISABILITIES -OTHER

OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS

Check if demanded in complaint:

• CHECK IF THIS IS ACLASS ACTIONUNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $ OTHER

Check YES only if demanded in complaintJURY DEMAND: 0 YES • NO

DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?

IF SO, STATE:

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

NOTE: Please submit at the time of filing an explanation of why cases are deemed related.

(PLACEAN x INONE BOX ONLY) ORIGIN

LlJ 1 Original I I2a. Removed from I I3 Remanded from I I 4 Reinstated or Lj 5 Transferred from L_l 6 Multidistrict LJ 7 Appeal to DistrictProceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (Specify District) Litigation Judge from

• 2b.Removed from Magistrate JudgeState Court AND Judgmentat least one

party is pro se.

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) BASIS OF JURISDICTION IF DIVERSITY, INDICATED 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF Q 2 U.S. DEFENDANT • 3 FEDERAL QUESTION 04 DIVERSITY CITIZENSHIP BELOW.

(U.S. NOTA PARTY) (28 USC 1322, 1441)

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)

(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant)

PTF DEF PTF DEF PTF DEF

CITIZEN OFTHIS STATE ^1 [11 CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A [ ] 3 [ ] 3 INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE []5 [J5FOREIGN COUNTRY OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE

CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE []2 Kl 2 INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE []4 []4 FOREIGN NATION []6 [16OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE

PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

Jonathan Sobel

32 East 64th Street

New York, New York 10065New York County

DEFENDANTS) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

William Eggleston, Winston Eggleston and William Eggleston IIIc/o Eggleston Artistic Trust3251 Poplar AvenueSuite 110

Memphis, Tennessee 38111

DEFENDANTS) ADDRESS UNKNOWNREPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN THE

RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:

Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: • WHITE PLAINS \7\ MANHATTAN(DO NOT check either box if this a PRISONER PETITION.)

DATE 4/03/12 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT

1 (AllcMKA/hJ WYES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.AU9" Yr.RECEIPT # /v " J" / Attorney Bar Code #

Magistrate Judge is to be designated by the Clerk of the Court. r :;fJC

Magistrate Judge is so Designated.

Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by Deputy Clerk, DATED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN)

JUDGEBATTS12 CIV 2551

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JONATHAN SOBEL,

against

Plaintiff,

WILLIAM EGGLESTON, individually, andWINSTON EGGLESTON and WILLIAM

EGGLESTON III as TRUSTEES of the

EGGLESTON ARTISTIC TRUST,

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL fo

DEMANDED00a

t

-< CO

Plaintiff JONATHAN SOBEL ("Sobel"), by his attorney, Georges G. Lederman,

Esq., as and for his complaint (the "Complaint") against defendants WILLIAM

EGGLESTON, individually ("Eggleston"), WINSTON EGGLESTON and WILLIAM

EGGLESTON III as Trustees (referred to individually as "Winston Eggleston" and

"William Eggleston III" and collectively as the "Trustees") of the EGGLESTON

ARTISTIC TRUST (the "Trust"), hereby alleges as follows:

Summary of Claims

1. This action asserts claims arising out of a violation of the protections

afforded consumers in the art market. The gravamen of this Complaint centers on the

sale of eight photographic images (the "Reprints") by the renowned American

photographer Eggleston at an auction sponsored by Christie's Inc. ("Christie's") in New

York City on March 12, 2012. The Reprints are identical in image to original

photographs which Eggleston had earlier created and designated as individually

numbered limited edition works (the "Limited Editions"), certain of which Sobel had

purchased from, in part, Christie's and other sellers. A principal factor in Sobel's

decision to purchase photographs from the Limited Editions was that these photographs

were, in fact, limited editions: they were created and sold in very limited quantities as

expressly specified by Eggleston, who numbered each Limited Edition photograph,

attesting to the limited production of these works.

2. The images portrayed in the Limited Editions are considered by art

connoisseurs, internationally renowned museums, prominent auction houses and

knowledgeable collectors alike to be iconic works of this genre. Prior to the March 12,

2012 Christie's sale, individual limited edition photographs by Eggleston have sold at

auction for over Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000).

3. The photographs from the Limited Editions are known in the photography

trade as "vintage" photographs and are believed to have been produced from

photographic negatives or slides often at or near the time that Eggleston created the

image on which each Limited Edition was based.1 The Reprints, in contrast, although

identical in image to the Limited Editions, were, upon information and belief, digitally

manufactured within the past six months to one year from computer-generated files or

1The method used to make vintage prints from negatives or slides is known as the "dye transfer process."Certain of the photographs from the Limited Editions that Sobel purchased were produced, uponinformation andbelief, muchlaterthanthe time Eggleston actually created the image.

scanned old prints and were physically printed on an inkjet printer.2 Other than being

larger in size than the Limited Edition photographs, the images of the Reprints are

indistinguishable to the naked eye from those depicted in the Limited Editions.3

4. Upon information and belief, Eggleston and the Trustees entered into a

consignment agreement with Christie's as their authorized agent for the sale of the

Reprints at auction. Upon information and belief, this consignmentwas made to benefit

Eggleston, the Trustees and the Trust. The Reprints were in fact sold at the March 12,

2012 Christie's auction of photographs entitled "Photographic Masterworks by William

Eggleston". Upon information and belief, the sale of 36 Eggleston photographs (which

included Reprints and other photographs) realized a total of Five Million Nine Hundred

Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($5,903,250).

5. Eggleston and the Trustees knew that the Reprints are the exact same

images as those depicted in the Limited Editions and differ only in size and medium. By

selling the Reprints through their agent Christie's at auction, Eggleston and the Trustees

have willfully violated the laws applicable to the production of limited edition works. As

a consequence of the sale of the Reprints at the March 12, 2012 Christie's auction, the

monetary value and uniqueness of the photographs from the Limited Editions that Sobel

purchased have now been substantially diminished.

6. Because of defendants' actions in selling the Reprints at the March 12,

2012 Christie's auction, Sobel seeks (1) damages arising from defendants' violation of

2Upon information and belief, some of the negatives or slides from which the Limited Editions had beencreated were either lost or destroyed.

3The size ofthe photographs from the Limited Editions varies but frequently approximates 16x20 inches;the Reprints are 44x60 inches.

New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law governing the production of limited edition

works; (2) damages arising from defendant Eggleston's fraudulent misrepresentation of

the Limited Editions as limited edition works; (3) damages arising from defendants'

negligent misrepresentation of the Limited Editions as limited edition works; (4) damages

arising from defendants' unjust enrichment stemming from the sale of the Reprints; and

(5) to enjoin defendants from any future sales of the Reprints or any similarly reproduced

images based on the Limited Editions, whether such sale is made privately, at auction or

otherwise.

Jurisdiction and Venue

7. This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1) as the plaintiff and the defendants are citizens

of different states. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds

the jurisdictional amount set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).

8. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 1391(a)(2) as a substantial part of the events that give rise to plaintiffs

claims asserted in this action occurred in this judicial District.

The Parties

9. Plaintiff Sobel is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. He is

the Managing Member of DTF Holdings, LLC, a financial services company whose

principal place of business is located in the State ofNew York.

10. Defendants Eggleston and the Trustees are citizens and residents of the

State of Tennessee. Winston Eggleston is the director of the Trust and, upon information

and belief, administers the Trust from the State of Tennessee.4 Eggleston and the

Trustees transact business within the Southern District of New York through their various

agents and representatives located in this judicial District.

Factual Allegations Common to All Counts

11. Eggleston is considered to be a pioneer in American photography, widely

credited with having increased the recognition for color photography as a legitimate

artistic medium. His photographs, which portray beauty in otherwise mundane scenes of

the American vernacular, are considered to be iconic and influential classics. Eggleston's

works have been exhibited in museums throughout the United States and around the

world, including, among many others, The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York;

The Museum of Modern Art in New York ("MoMA"); the Whitney Museum of

American Art in New York (the "Whitney"); the National Gallery of Art in Washington,

D.C.; and the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. (the "Corcoran"). The

market for Eggleston's photographs, especially the Limited Editions, has increased

substantially over the past 10 years; prices at auction and in private sales for his original

photographs, including the Limited Editions, have ranged from tens of thousands of

dollars to over Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) each. Upon information

4 The Trust was founded in 1992 under the laws of the State of Tennessee. It is an organization thatpurports to be dedicated to the representation and preservation of the works of Eggleston. Uponinformation and belief the Trust is not a charitable entity but instead is a vehicle established in part forestate planning purposes for the benefit of the Trustees. Its principal offices are located in the State ofTennessee.

and belief, prices for the 36 photographs at their March 12, 2012 sale, which included

Reprints and other Eggleston photographs, ranged from a low of Thirty Two Thousand

Five Hundred Dollars ($32,500) to a high of Five Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Five

Hundred Dollars ($578,500).

12. The Trust is the entity and the Trustees are the individuals who, referring

to Eggleston, "speak for the artist" in the parlance of the art world. Their role is the

representation and preservation of Eggleston's works. Upon information and belief,

however, the primary purpose of the Trust and the Trustees is to act as intermediary

between Eggleston and his agents, including Christie's, and/or art dealers and to enter

into contracts on behalf of Eggleston relating to the sale of his works to benefit the

financial interests of Eggleston and the Trustees.

13. Sobel has been an avid collector of art for over 15 years. He personally

owns in excess of 190 Eggleston photographs, which he began collecting on or about 10

years ago. Over the years he has purchased these works from, among others, the auction

houses Christie's, Sotheby's, Inc. and Phillips de Pury & Company ("Phillips"); the

prominent photography gallery Cheim & Read, LLC ("Cheim & Read"); and directly

from William Eggleston III. The aggregate fair market value of Sobel's entire collection

of Eggleston vintage photographs prior to the March 12, 2012 sale at Christie's was

between approximately Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) and Five Million Dollars

($5,000,000).

14. In addition to being a collector of Eggleston's works, Sobel has been a

prominent supporter of Eggleston's career. Sobel is a founder of the Jonathan Sobel and

Marcia Dunn Foundation (the "Foundation"), a nonprofit organization whose purpose is

to provide grants to charitable organizations that, among others, support the arts. In 2009

the Foundation sponsored a career retrospective of Eggleston's works that was exhibited

at the Whitney and then traveled to the Corcoran, the Los Angeles County Museum of

Art ("LACMA"), the Art Institute of Chicago (the "Art Institute") and the Haus der

Kunst museum in Munich, Germany. The Foundation also made a separate financial

contribution to LACMA to support this exhibit. Sobel has personally loaned works from

his private collection ofEggleston photographs to, among others, the Whitney, LACMA,

the Corcoran, the Art Institute, Haus der Kunst, the Cincinnati Art Museum and the

Princeton University Art Museum. He and his wife also made a financial contribution in

2009 to the Whitney, which used thecontribution to purchase works by Eggleston.

15. Between on or about 2008 through on or about 2011, Sobel purchased the

eight photographs from the Limited Editions that are the subject matter of this action. He

purchased them from, among others, Christie's, Phillips and Cheim & Read. Certain of

the photographs from the Limited Editions that Sobel purchased from Cheim & Read had

come directly from the Trust's holdings. Each of these eight photographs from the

Limited Editions was individually numbered on the photograph itself. The unique

number oneach individual Limited Edition was usually expressed as a fraction.5 Because

each of these eight photographs from the Limited Editions was individually numbered,

Eggleston and the Trustees expressly and impliedly represented to Sobel and other

purchasers of photographs in the Limited Editions that such photographs were limited

edition works.

5The fraction was an express representation by Eggleston ofthe entire number ofphotographs in theLimited Edition as wellas which particular numbered photograph wasbeingsold. The numerator indicatedthe specific image in the Limited Edition; the denominator indicated the maximum number of such imagesin the particular Limited Edition.

16. The designation of the photographs from the Limited Editions as limited

edition works has enormous financial significance. A collector pays a premium for a

limited edition work, because that designation expressly and impliedly represents to the

collector thatthe limited edition work will notbe reproduced beyond the number set forth

in the series of that particular limited edition. Similarly, the artist who creates a limited

edition work can command a higher price for such work because of its uniqueness, in

contrast to a work whose reproduction is not so restricted.

17. The aggregate fair marketvalue of the eight photographs from the Limited

Editions that Sobel purchased was approximately Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars

($850,000) immediately prior to the March 12, 2012 Christie's sale.

18. As a consequence of the sale of the Reprints at the March 12, 2012

Christie's auction, the value of Sobel's photographs from the Limited Editions has been

diminished by the very existence of additional copies of the same image now in the art

market. Defendants have engaged in similar conduct involving the reissuing of other

photographs from the Limited Editions prior to the March 12, 2012 Christie's auction.

Based on this prior and present conduct and upon information and belief, defendants

intend to reproduce other images from photographs in the Limited Editions—and from

those of other limited editions as well—in addition to the Reprints and sell them privately

or at auction or otherwise, thereby further diminishing the value of original Eggleston

photographs produced and sold as limited editions.

As And For A First Cause of Action

Violation ofNew York ArtsandCultural Affairs LawSection 11.01(10)

(Against the Defendants)

19. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set

forth in Paragraphs "1" through "18" of this Complaint with the same force and effect as

if herein set forth in full.

20. New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 11.01(10) defines the

designation "limited edition" as "works of art produced from a master, all of which are

the same image and bear numbers or other markings to denote the limited production

thereofto a stated maximumnumber of multiples or are otherwise held out as limited to a

maximum number ofmultiples."

21. Each of the photographs from the Limited Editions that Sobel purchased

meets the definition of a "limited edition" under New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs

Law Section 11.01(10). Each was produced from a master and each photograph bears a

handwritten number on the work, denoting the limited production of the image depicted

in the photograph to a statedmaximum number of multiples.

22. Defendants, through their agents, including, among others, Christie's,

expressly and impliedly represented to Sobel that the photographs from the Limited

Editions he purchased were limited editions as defined in New York's Arts and Cultural

Affairs Law Section 11.01(10) because of the numerical designation of each said

photographto a stated maximum number ofmultiples.

23. By producing the Reprints and then selling them through their agent

Christie's at the March 12, 2012 auction, defendants violated both the letter and the spirit

of New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 11.01(10). Upon information and

belief, defendants intend to reproduce other images from photographs from the Limited

Editions in addition to the Reprints and sell them privately or at auction, thereby

continuing to violate this statute.

24. As a result of defendants' violation of New York's Arts and Cultural

Affairs Law Section 11.01(10), Sobel has been damaged in an amount that exceeds the

statutoryjurisdictional amount and which precise amount is to be determined at trial.

As And For a Second Cause of Action

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

(Against Defendant Eggleston)

25. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set

forth in Paragraphs "1" through "24" of this Complaint with the same force and effect as

if herein set forth in full.

26. Sobel relied on the representation that photographs from the Limited

Editions were limited edition works when he purchased these photographs at auction,

from galleries and elsewhere.

27. Defendant Eggleston knew that this representation was false when made

as evidenced by his subsequent course of conduct, which demonstrated an original intent

to produce and sell Reprints or other images from the Limited Editions. Defendant

Eggleston not only consigned the Reprints to Christie's for the March 12, 2012 auction

but also engaged in similar conduct involving the reissuingof other photographs from the

Limited Editions prior to the March 12, 2012 Christie's auction. This pattern of activity

10

reveals that defendant Eggleston had every intention of violating the designation of

photographs from the Limited Editions as limited edition works when such designation

was made.

28. Defendant Eggleston knew or should have known that Sobel would and

did rely on this fraudulent misrepresentation in purchasing photographs from the Limited

Editions designated as limited edition works. Defendant Eggleston understood that the

designation of the photographs from the Limited Editions as limited edition works has

enormous financial significance that would inure to his benefit. Because the designation

"limited edition" expressly and impliedly represented to Sobel that the photographs from

the Limited Editions would not be reproduced beyond the number set forth in the Limited

Editions, Sobel paid a premium for the photographs from the Limited Editions.

Defendant Eggleston thus stood to benefit from a higher profit margin from the sale of

photographs from the Limited Editions to Sobel than had these photographs not been

designated limited edition works.

29. Defendant Eggleston's conduct in furtherance of this fraudulent

misrepresentation was willful and undertaken with conscious disregard of Sobel's

interests in purchasing photographs from the Limited Editions. An award of punitive

damages against defendant Eggleston is thereby warranted.

30. Sobel relied to his detriment on this fraudulent misrepresentation, because

the auction and sale of the Reprints on March 12, 2012 at Christie's resulted in the

diminution of the monetary value and uniqueness of his photographs from the Limited

Editions.

11

31. As a result of defendant Eggleston's fraudulent misrepresentation of the

photographs from the Limited Editions as limited edition works, Sobel has been damaged

in an amount that exceeds the statutory jurisdictional amount and which precise amount

is to be determined at trial.

As And For A Third Cause of Action

Negligent Misrepresentation

(Against the Defendants)

32. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set

forth in Paragraphs "1" through "31" of this Complaint with the same force and effect as

if herein set forth in full.

33. Sobel purchased photographs from the Limited Editions from Christie's,

which acted as agent for defendants at the March 12, 2012 auction and sale of the

Reprints. A special or privity-like relationship therefore existed between Sobel and

defendants, imposing upon defendants a duty to impart to Sobel and other purchasers of

photographs from the Limited Editions true and correct information pertaining to the

edition size of these works.

34. Defendants understood that the designation of the photographs from the

Limited Editions as limited edition works has enormous financial significance.

Defendants further understood that Sobel, and any other collector of Eggleston's works,

would rely on the representation that photographs from the Limited Editions were limited

editions works for purposes of purchasing such photographs at auction, from galleries

and elsewhere.

12

35. Defendants knew or should have known that the representation that

photographs from the Limited Editions were limited edition works was false. Defendants

not only were responsible for issuing the Reprints and enlisting Christie's as agent to

auction and sell the Reprints but also engaged in similar conduct involving the reissuing

of other photographs from the Limited Editions prior to the March 12, 2012 auction.

Defendants therefore knew that they had no intention of limiting the production of

photographs from the Limited Editions to the numbered photographs in the Limited

Editions.

36. Sobel intended to rely and did rely upon defendants' misrepresentation

that photographs from the Limited Editions were limited edition works when he

purchased these photographs at auction, from galleries and elsewhere. Sobel relied to his

detriment on this misrepresentation, because the auction and sale of the Reprints on

March 12, 2012 at Christie's resulted in the diminution of the monetary value and

uniqueness of his photographs from the Limited Editions.

37. As a result of defendants' misrepresentation of the photographs from the

Limited Editions as limited edition works, Sobel has been damaged in an amount that

exceeds the statutory jurisdictional amount and which precise amount is to be determined

at trial.

13

As And For a Fourth Cause of Action

Unjust Enrichment

(Against the Defendants)

38. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set

forth in Paragraphs "1" through "37" of this Complaint with the same force and effect as

if herein set forth in full.

39. The sale of the Reprints at the Christie's March 12, 2012 auction

generated Five Million Nine-Hundred Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars

($5,903,250) in proceeds.

40. Defendants will benefit from the proceeds stemming from the sale of the

Reprints at the Christie's March 12, 2012 auction.

41. It would be inequitable for defendants to benefit either individually or

collectively from the sale of the Reprints at the Christie's March 12, 2012 auction where

such benefit arose out of their misrepresentation of Sobel's Limited Edition photographs

as limited edition works and their willful violation of the laws governing the production

and sale of limited edition works.

42. Defendants therefore have been unjustly enriched in an amount to be

determined at trial.

43. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unjust enrichment, Sobel

has sustained damages and will continue to incur further damages in an amount to be

proven at trial. Sobel has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm until such

time as defendants are ordered to disgorge the funds or other benefit they received as a

result of the Christie's March 12, 2012 auction and are enjoined from the future sale,

14

whether privately, at auction or otherwise, of the Reprints or any similarly reproduced

images based on the Limited Editions.

44. Sobel does not have any adequate remedy at law.

45. As a result, Sobel is entitled to judgment in his favor for compensatory

damages in an amount to be determined at trial and an order enjoining the Trust and the

Trustees from selling the Reprints or any similarly reproduced images based on the

Limited Editions, whether such sale is done privately, at auction or otherwise

As And For a Fifth Cause of Action

Promissory Estoppel

(Against the Defendants)

46. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set

forth in Paragraphs "1" through "45" of this Complaint with the same force and effect as

if herein set forth in full.

47. Defendants, through their agents, including, among others, Christie's,

made a clear and unambiguous promise to Sobel that the photographs from the Limited

Editions he purchased were limited edition works because of the numerical designation

on each said photograph to a stated maximum number ofmultiples in accordance with the

laws governing the production of limited edition works.

48. It would be reasonable and foreseeable that Sobel, or any other collector

of Eggleston's works, would rely on the clear and unambiguous promise that the

photographs from the Limited Editions were in fact limited edition works for purposes of

purchasing such photographs at auction, from galleries and elsewhere.

15

49. Sobel did rely on the clear and unambiguous promise that the photographs

from the Limited Editions were in fact limited edition works when he purchased the

photographs from the Limited Editions at auction, from galleries and elsewhere.

50. The clear and unambiguous promise that the photographs from the

Limited Editions were in fact limited edition works was false. Once defendants, through

their agent Christie's, sold the Reprints at the Christie's March 12, 2012 auction, the

photographs that Sobel had purchased from the Limited Editions were no longer limited

edition works.

51. As a result of his detrimental reliance on the clear and unambiguous

promise that the photographs from the Limited Editions were in fact limited edition

works, Sobel has been damaged in an amount that exceeds the statutory jurisdictional

amount and which precise amount is to be determined at trial.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all claims and causes of action asserted in this

Complaint.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Sobel respectfully requests that judgment be entered in

favor of plaintiff as follows:

(A) On the First Cause of Action against defendants, compensatory damages

reflecting the difference between the value of plaintiffs entire collection of photographs

from the Limited Editions prior to and after the March 12, 2012 Christie's auction, in a

16

sum exceeding the jurisdictional amount set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, the precise

amount of which to be proven at trial;

(B) On the Second Cause of Action against defendant Eggleston,

compensatory damages reflecting the difference between the value of plaintiffs entire

collection of photographs from theLimited Editions prior to and after theMarch 12, 2012

Christie's auction, and punitive damages, in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional amount

setforth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, theprecise amount ofwhich to beproven at trial;

(C) On the Third Cause of Action against defendants, compensatory damages

reflecting the difference between the value of plaintiffs entire collection of photographs

from the Limited Editions prior to and after the March 12, 2012 Christie's auction, in a

sum exceeding thejurisdictional amount set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, the precise

amount ofwhich to be proven at trial;

(D) Onthe Fourth Cause of Action against defendants, compensatory damages

reflecting the difference between the value of plaintiffs entire collection of photographs

from the Limited Editions prior to and after the March 12, 2012 Christie's auction, in a

sum exceeding the jurisdictional amount set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, the precise

amount of which to be proven at trial;

(E) On the Fifth Cause of Action against defendants, compensatory damages

reflecting the difference between the value of plaintiffs entire collection of photographs

from the Limited Editions prior to and after the March 12, 2012 Christie's auction, in a

sum exceeding the jurisdictional amount set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, the precise

amount of which to be proven at trial;

17

(F) Enjoining defendants from any future sales of the Reprints or any

similarly reproduced images based on the Limited Editions privately, at auction or

otherwise;

(G) Interest, costs and disbursements relating to this action, including

reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in this action; and

(H) Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New YorkApril 3, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

Georges G. Lederman, Esq.Attorneyfor PlaintiffJonathanSobel

ydtA/fa^y'Office and\Pafst Office Address

'52 Duane($freet, 7th FloorNew York, New York 10007Telephone: (212)374-9160Facsimile: (212)732-6323

18

Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JONATHAN SOBEL,

- against •

WILLIAM EGGLESTON, individually, andWINSTON EGGLESTON and WILLIAM

EGGLESTON III as TRUSTEES of the

EGGLESTON ARTISTIC TRUST,

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

GEORGES G. LEDERMAN, ESQ.

OFFICE AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS

52 DUANE STREET, 7th FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10007

TELEPHONE (212) 374-9160

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

A TTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JONA THAN SOBEL