Read the full article by Mark Kernes at

LONG BEACH, Calif.—Yesterday, adult actress Nadya Nabakova was given a forum to air her grievances against Direct Models, Inc. and owner Derek Hay in a hearing before Max Norris, an attorney with the California State Labor Commission acting as hearing examiner. Representing Nabakova was Courtney L. Puritsky, while Direct Models and Hay were represented by Joseph Baldivia, who was the attorney doing the questioning, and David Pierce. The hearing—which Norris described as “informal,” though both witnesses were placed under oath—began just after 10 a.m.

As AVN previously noted, Nabakova filed her complaint with the commission last January, and Tuesday’s hearing was largely a “she said/he said” affair, with the decision in the case likely to revolve mainly around whether or not Direct Models (better known in the adult industry as “LA Direct Models”) and/or Hay violated the California’s Talent Agencies Act, since although it’s currently based in Las Vegas, Direct Models is chartered in California.

Though no ruling has yet been issued—the examiner will issue one within 30 days after the two attorneys submit closing arguments in writing by Monday—the hearing covered many points of interest to agents and performers in the adult industry.

After both sides gave brief opening statements, Puritsky began by questioning Nabakova about how she came to contact Direct Models (“DM”) in the first place, by email in mid-September of 2017, and about the agreement and several addenda that she eventually signed with the company, of which she said she was not given copies. Besides the contract for representation itself, which would run for a term of five years at 15 percent commission (reduced to 10 percent if she provided her own transportation), Nabakova also signed a rental agreement to rent a room at Hay’s “model house” in Los Angeles (which agreement Nabakova pointed out was distinct from the representation agreement), as well as documents relating to “kill fees” and how changes in Nabakova’s appearance would affect her representation agreement. It was pointed out later that only the representation agreement itself bore a stamp of approval from the California Labor Commission, as required by Labor Code Sec. 1700.23.