Natalia Kulakovskaya: The 2019 Civil Case Against 1 Mother Agency USA and MC2
Snapshot
| Profile status | Docket, complaint pleading (pages 1–6) and dismissal notice reviewed. Detailed exhibit terms remain subject to further review. |
|---|---|
| Verified role | Plaintiff in a Miami civil case involving two modeling businesses. |
| Local case number | 2019-004778-CA-01 |
| State case number | 132019CA004778000001 |
| Court | Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida |
| Complaint filed | February 13, 2019 |
| Docket disposition | Closed; notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice filed April 30, 2020 (DIN 9). |
| Evidence limit | The pleaded claims are allegations, not court findings. No settlement terms or merits determination are established here. |
Overview
The Miami-Dade Clerk’s official civil docket identifies Natalia Kulakovskaya as plaintiff in case 2019-004778-CA-01, captioned against 1 Mother Agency USA and others. The listed defendants include 1 Mother Agency USA and MC2 Models Management, LLC.
The complaint was filed on February 13, 2019. The docket lists voluntary dismissal entries on April 30, 2020 and identifies the case as closed. These are verified procedural facts. They do not establish that any allegation was proved or rejected.
This profile is based on the official docket, the complaint’s six pleading pages and the one-page notice of voluntary dismissal. The complaint concerns modeling contracts and fiduciary duties. Its claims are allegations, not court findings.
Exact court record references
The official case search retrieves the case using local number 2019-004778-CA-01 or state number 132019CA004778000001. The docket identifies the complaint as document index number 2, dated February 13, 2019.
The official viewer provides a 39-page complaint and exhibits (DIN 2). The pleading occupies pages 1–6. Count I seeks declaratory relief against 1 Mother Agency USA (pages 2–3); Count II seeks declaratory relief against MC2 (pages 3–4). Count III alleges breach of fiduciary duty against Mother (pages 4–5), and Count IV alleges that MC2 aided and abetted that breach (page 5). The declaratory counts challenge contractual obligations; the damages counts allege lost earnings and expenses. These are the plaintiff’s pleaded claims, not findings of liability.
Exhibit A contains Mother agency agreement materials (PDF pages 7–24), and Exhibit B contains MC2 agreement materials (PDF pages 25–39). Detailed contractual terms have not been independently validated. Private identifiers in the exhibits are not reproduced here.
The one-page Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (DIN 9), e-filed April 30, 2020, expressly dismisses the action without prejudice. It does not state settlement terms or explain the plaintiff’s reasons. DIN 10 is a separate same-date docket entry labeled Voluntary Dismissal with event type Judgment; no separate document text for DIN 10 was reviewed.
Page references above identify pages in the public-access complaint PDF (DIN 2); the dismissal notice is page 1 of DIN 9. No EFTA identifier for Kulakovskaya was verified in this review.
Relevance to modeling network research
EpsteinWiki’s MC2 Model Management article provides company background. Kulakovskaya’s civil docket supplies a separate, independently retrievable record involving MC2 and 1 Mother Agency USA.
The caption establishes who was named in this particular proceeding. It does not establish the ownership of every business using a similar agency name, the conduct of an individual director, or a relationship between every employee and Jeffrey Epstein.
A civil dispute involving a modeling company should not be recast as an allegation of participation in Epstein’s sexual abuse. This review did not verify such an allegation in Kulakovskaya’s pleading.
Procedural significance and limits
The dismissal notice establishes that this action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. It does not establish why the plaintiff ended the case, whether a settlement occurred, or whether any allegation was proved or rejected.
No settlement agreement, payment record, merits judgment or verified account of the parties’ reasons was obtained. None is inferred from the docket status.
The profile avoids personal contact details, private model information and unsupported survivor classifications. A person’s participation in litigation does not establish any unrelated allegation about that person.
Questions That Remain
Is there a public record explaining why the action was dismissed? Do any further filings establish settlement terms or a merits determination? What additional context is needed to assess the contractual exhibits?
Further updates should distinguish the claims pleaded in DIN 2 from facts established by a court. The reviewed DIN 9 resolves the dismissal’s prejudice status, but not the parties’ reasons or the merits of the dispute. DIN 10 remains a docket-only reference in this review.
Sources
Miami-Dade Clerk of the Court and Comptroller civil search: search local case 2019-004778-CA-01 or state case 132019CA004778000001. DIN 2 is the complaint filed February 13, 2019: pleading pages 1–6, Exhibit A pages 7–24, Exhibit B pages 25–39. DIN 9 is the one-page Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed April 30, 2020. DIN 10 is the same-date docket judgment entry, not separately reviewed document text. Use the docket’s document controls to retrieve the public-access copies; these are not certified copies.
EpsteinWiki’s MC2 Model Management article supplies related internal background. It is not a substitute for the complaint or dismissal documents.