Kara Blanc v. Tri Crown Lawsuit
STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON (State Bar No. 36189)
STEPHEN ALLEN JAMIESON (State Bar No. 115805)
R. BRUCE EVANS (State Bar No. 217098)
SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
KARA BLANC.
Plaintiff.
Vs.
TRI-CROWN PRODUCTIONS, INC.
YEA STUDIOS; SCI-FI CHANNEL
CREATORS SCOTT HALLOCK; KEVIN
HEALEY; MATHEW MERTHA; TRAVIS
DRAFT; HALLOCK HEALEY
ENTERTAINMENT; TRI-CROWN
CREATIVE GROUP; TRI-CROWN
COMPANIES: and DOES 1through 50.
Inclusive.
Defendants
Case No. BC290440
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
INVASION OF PRIVACY; VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE ß1708.0; VIOLATION OF
PENAL CODE ß632.2; ASSAULT; FALSE IMPRISONMENT; FRAUDULENT
MISREPRESENTATION;
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS
PRACTICES
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff KARA BLANC was over the
age of 18 and competent to bring this action and testify; and all times
was residing in Los Angeles County, California.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Tri-Crown Productions,
Inc. was a California corporation located at 2157 Talmadge Avenue in Los
Angeles, California, which was in the business of television production,
and which was one producer, owner, financier and developer of a
television show known as “Scare Tactics”, which will be aired on
Defendant Sci-Fi Channel commencing 2003.
3. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Yeah Studios was a
business organization owned or operated by Defendant Tri-Crown
Productions, Inc., located at 2157 Talmadge Avenue in Los Angeles,
California, which was in the business of television production, and
which was one producer, owner, financier and developer of a television
show known as “Scare Tactics”, which will be aired on Defendant
Sci-Fi Channel commencing in 2003.
4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Sci-Fi Channel was a
California corporation with its principal place of business in Los
Angeles, California, which was one producer, owner, financier and
developer of a television show known as “Scare Tactics”, which will
be aired on Defendant Sci-Fi Channel commencing in 2003.
5. At all times herein mentioned, Scott Hallock was a creator,
writer, producer and director of that television program known as
“Scare Tactics”.
6. At all times herein mentioned, Kevin Healey was acreator, writer,
producer and director of that television program known as “Scare
Tactics”.
7. At all times herein mentioned, Matthew Mertha was an employee and
agent of the other Defendants, and was an actor on the episode of
“Scare Tactics” in which Plaintiff was a nonconsenting and unwitting
victim.
8. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Travis Draft was an
employee and agent of the other Defendants, and was an actor on the
episode of “Scare Tactics” in which Plaintiff was a nonconsenting
and unwitting victim.
9. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, and therefore sues these
Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint
to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is
informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is
responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that
Plaintiff’s damages were proximately and legally caused by their
conduct.
10. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times herein
mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents (ostensible and
actual) and employees of the other named Defendants, and in doing the
things herein alleged, were acting within the course and scope of such
agency and employment and with the permission, consent, authorization
and ratification of each of the other Co-Defendants. Additionally, each
of the Defendants who made representations herein was making those
representations in the course and scope of their employment and agency
with and on behalf of each of the other Defendants. Furthermore, all
reference to “Defendants” or any named Defendant is also considered
throughout this pleading to be a reference to DOES 1-50 as well.
11. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them,
intended to subject Plaintiff, without her knowledge or consent, to a
hidden camera episode of “Scare Tactics” which was designed to make
her believe that she and her friends were about to become victims of a
homicide, and that the Defendants further intended to and did in fact
create an audio and visual record, videotape and/or film of
Plaintiff’s terrified reaction to this scenario in order to
financially profit. Furthermore, Defendants recorded and filmed numerous
other victims of “Scare Tactics” under similar or identical
circumstances, all of which constituted an unfair, illegal and
fraudulent business practice.
12. On March 1 , 2002, in Los Angeles County, California, Defendants
and each of them subjected Plaintiff to a filming of the show “Scare
Tactics”, during which Defendants Mertha and Draft feigned that they
were being seriously physically injured and/or killed, and that
Plaintiff was at immediate risk of being injured or killed, all in an
effort to terrorize Plaintiff so that Defendants could capture her
reactions on audio and film without her knowledge or consent. Defendants
Mertha and Draft made the following representations of material fact to
Plaintiff:
(a) That on the evening of March 1 , 2002, Plaintiff was invited and
was being taken to an exclusive Hollywood industry party at a desert
resort located in Los Angeles County, California;
(b) That the automobile in which Defendant Mertha, Defendant Draft
and Plaintiff were riding had “stalled” on a remote desert road in
Los Angeles County, California;
(c) That a costumed “Alien” was in fact attacking and physically
injuring Defendants Mertha and Draft, and that Plaintiff’s life and
that of said Defendants were in grave danger; and
(d) That Plaintiff could only escape serious injury or death by
running for her life through a dark, desert canyon area, and to then
later return to the automobile in hopes of escape.
These representations of said Defendants were in fact false. The
truth was that: Plaintiff had not been invited to and exclusive
Hollywood industry party; that the automobile in which Plaintiff was
riding had not “stalled”; that Plaintiff and Defendants Mertha and
Draft were not probable victims of a homicide at the hands of the
“Alien”, but rather Defendants Mertha, Draft and the “Alien”
were merely actors in a surreptitious episode of “Scare Tactics”;
and that Plaintiff had no need to escape as she was informed she should
by Defendants Mertha and Draft. Defendants intended to cause plaintiff
to believe that defendants were attempting to murder, kidnap, or
otherwise terrorize plaintiff and her “friends”, and cause her and
her “friends” physical and emotional damage and harm; and plaintiff
did in fact, believe that was happening. As a result of defendants
intentional and negligent actions and omissions, plaintiff suffered
severe physical and emotional injuries and damages. She was hospitalized
several times and has incurred medical costs, lost earnings and earning
capacity.
13. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that
Plaintiff would be seriously frightened, emotionally disturbed, fear for
her personal safety and be psychologically and/or physically injured--or
in fear that her “friends” would be physically injure or
killed—during the course of filming the show “Scare Tactics.”
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1–13 of this Complaint.
14. On March 1 , 2002, in Los Angeles County, California, Defendants
and each of them negligently subjected Plaintiff to a nonconsensual
filming of the show “Scare Tactics”, at which time Plaintiff
suffered physical injuries, as well as severe emotional distress.
15. As a proximate legal result of Defendants’ negligence,
Plaintiff has and will suffer economic damages in an amount to be
awarded according to proof.
16. As a proximate legal result of Defendants’ negligence,
Plaintiff has and will suffer noneconomic damages in an amount to be
awarded according to proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 14-16 of this Complaint.
17. Defendants and each of them engaged in negligent conduct as
described hereinabove, and violated Civil Code ß1708.0 and Penal Code
ß637.2, among others.
18. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent
conduct and violation of statutory standards, Plaintiff suffered serious
distress.
19. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent
infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff has and will suffer economic
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
20. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent
infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff has and will suffer
noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-20 of this Complaint.
21. Defendants and each of them engaged in outrageous conduct as
described above, which Plaintiff is informed and believes was intended
to cause Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.
22. Additionally, Defendants and each of them engaged in the
above-described outrageous conduct with reckless disregard of the
probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress, the
Plaintiff was present at the time the outrageous conduct occurred, and
the Defendants knew that the Plaintiff was present.
23. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ outrageous
conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.
24. As a further legal and proximate result of Defendants’
outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount
to be awarded according to proof.
25. As a further legal and proximate result of Defendants’
outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an
amount to be awarded according to proof.
26. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent,
malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the
course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and
business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified
the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their
behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(INVASION OF PRIVACY – INTRUSION, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS,
AND FALSE LIGHT)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-26 of this Complaint.
27. At the time the Defendants used their hidden audio, video and
television cameras, Plaintiff was either a passenger in an automobile,
or a remote deserted area of Los Angeles County, California. At all
times herein mentioned, Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of
privacy that Defendants would not unreasonably intrude into
Plaintiff’s privacy, nor publicly traumatize her for the purpose of
revealing her trauma to the cast and crew of Scare Tactics who witnessed
it while they surreptitiously recorded and filmed it.
28. Defendants’ intrusion into Plaintiff’s private life by
terrorizing and traumatizing her for the purpose of such surreptitious
recording and filming was, and is, highly offensive to a reasonable and
ordinary person.
29. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ intrusion into
Plaintiff’s privacy, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an
amount to be awarded according to proof.
30. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ intrusion into
Plaintiff’s privacy, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an
amount to be awarded according to proof.
31. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent,
malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the
course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and
business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified
the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their own
behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE ß1708.8)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates be reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-31 of this Complaint.
32. Defendants and each of them invaded Plaintiff’s privacy in a
manner offensive to a reasonable person by attempting to capture the
visual images and sound recordings of Plaintiff engaging in personal
activities about which Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of
privacy, through the use of visual and auditory enhancing devices.
33. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and
each of them trespassed in order to physically invade the privacy of
Plaintiff with the intent to capture visual images and sound recordings
of Plaintiff engaged in personal activities, and the invasion incurred
in a manner which was offensive to a reasonable person.
34. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct,
Plaintiff is entitled to economic damages in an amount to be awarded
according to proof.
35. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct,
Plaintiff is entitled to noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded
according to proof.
36. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct,
Plaintiff is entitled to three times the amount of Plaintiff’s
economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to
proof.
37. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent,
malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the
course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and
business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified
the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their
behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE ß632 & ß637.2)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-37 of this Complaint.
38. Defendants and each of them intentionally and without the consent
of the Plaintiff, electronically recorded and eavesdropped upon the
confidential communication of Plaintiff with the Defendants Mertha and
Draft on the evening of March 1 , 2002, in Los Angeles County,
California, while Plaintiff was in an automobile and in a remote,
deserted area, locations and circumstances under which Plaintiff had a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
39. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ eavesdropping
and recording of Plaintiff’s confidential communications, Plaintiff
has suffered economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to
proof.
40. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ eavesdropping
and recording of Plaintiff’s confidential communications, Plaintiff
has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to
proof.
41. As a result of Defendants’ violations of Penal Code ß632.2,
Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of 5,000.00, or three
times Plaintiff’s actual damages, whichever is greater.
42. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent,
malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the
course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and
business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified
the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their
behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be awarding according to proof.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(ASSAULT)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-42 of this Complaint.
43. On or about March 1 , 2002, in Los Angeles County, California, an
unknown assailant who was employed by and the agent of Defendants, and
each of them, acting during the course and scope of his employment,
attacked and assaulted Plaintiff while in an “Alien” costume,
placing Plaintiff in fear of her life and lives of her friends.
44. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants intended to cause or
to place Plaintiff in apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact
with Plaintiff’s person.
45. As a result of the Defendants’ acts as alleged herein,
Plaintiff, in fact, was placed in great apprehension of a harmful or
offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person.
46. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ acts as alleged
herein, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be
awarded according to proof.
47. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ acts as alleged
herein, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages. in amount to be
awarded according to proof.
48. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent,
malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the
course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and
business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified
the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their
behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(FALSE IMPRISIONMENT)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference
herein
each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-48
of this Complaint.
49. Defendants,
and each of them, intentionally and
unlawfully exercised force or the express or implied threat
of force, menace, fraud or deceit, and/or unreasonable
duress to restrain, detain or confine the Plaintiff in or
around the automobile where the terroristic attack
occurred.
50. The
restraint, detention or confinement compelled
Plaintiff to stay in the car, to later escape into
the desert-
like canyon area, and then to retreat to the automobile in
an attempt to escape.
51. Plaintiff
did not consent to the restraint, detention or
confinement at any time.
52. As
a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ act as
alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in
an amount to be awarded according to proof.
53. As
al legal proximate result of Defendants’ acts as
alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages
in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
54. The
conduct of Defendants and each of them was
fraudulent, malicious and oppressive.
In doing these
fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the
individual Defendants was acting within the course and
scope of his or her employment with the corporate and
business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized
and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who
were acting on their behalf. As
a consequence of
Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct,
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to
be awarded according to proof.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference
herein
each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-54
of this Complaint.
55. Defendants
Mertha and Draft made the following representations of material fact to
Plaintiff:
(a) That
on the evening of
March 1 , 2002
, Plaintiff was
invited and being taken to an exclusive
Hollywood
industry party at a desert resort located in
Los Angeles
County,
California
;
(b) That
the automobile in which Defendant Mertha,
Defendant Draft and Plaintiff were riding had “stalled” on a
remote desert road in
Los Angeles County
,
California
;
(c) That
a costumed “Alien” was in fact attacking and
physically injuring Defendants Mertha and Draft, and that
Plaintiff’s life and that of said Defendants were in grave
danger; and
(d) That
Plaintiff could only escape serious injury or death
by running for her life through a dark, desert canyon area,
and to then later return to the automobile in hopes of
escape.
56. These
representations of said Defendants were in fact
false. The truth was that:
Plaintiff had not been invited to
an exclusive
Hollywood
industry party; that the automobile
in which Plaintiff was riding had not “stalled”;
that Plaintiff
and Defendants Mertha and Draft were not probable
victims of a homicide at the hands of the “Alien”, but rather
than Defendants Mertha, Draft and the “Alien” were merely
actors in a surreptitious episode of “Scare Tactics”; and
that Plaintiff had no need to escape as she was informed
she should by Defendants Mertha and Draft.
57. When
said Defendants made the above-described
representations, they knew they were false.
58. Defendants Mertha and
Draft, acting in the course and
scope of their employment and agency with the other
remaining Defendants, made the above representations
with the malicious, oppressive and fraudulent intent to
defraud and induce Plaintiff to be terrorized, frightened,
and seriously emotionally distressed so that Plaintiff’s
reactions could be surreptitiously recorded and filmed.
59. At the time Plaintiff acted, Plaintiff did not
know that the representations were false and believed that they were
true. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance on the truth of the
representations.
60. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’
misrepresentations of material fact, Plaintiff has suffered economic
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
61. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’
misrepresentations of material fact, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
62. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent,
malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the
course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and
business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified
the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their
behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-62 of this Complaint.
63. Defendants, and each of them, concealed or suppressed the
material facts described hereinabove in paragraphs 55 and 56.
64. Defendants concealed or suppressed such material facts by telling
Plaintiff other facts, including those described in paragraph 55, to
mislead Plaintiff to prevent Plaintiff from discovering the truth.
65. Defendants concealed or suppressed these facts with the intent to
defraud and induce Plaintiff to act as described hereinabove.
66. At the time Plaintiff acted, Plaintiff was unaware of the
concealed or suppressed facts and would not have taken the action if
Plaintiff had known the facts.
67. In justifiable reliance upon Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was
induced to the fact in fear of her safety as described hereinabove.
68. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ concealment of
material facts, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to
be awarded according to proof.
69. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ concealment of
material fact, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount
to be awarded according to proof.
70. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent,
malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the
course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and
business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified
the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their
behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and
oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF B&P ß17200 and ß17500)
(As Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and
every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-70 of this Complaint.
71. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in the conduct and made the
misrepresentations described hereinabove in an untrue and misleading
manner, and as part of a business practice to deceive the general
public, including Plaintiff, into unwittingly participating in
Defendants’ television program “Scare Tactics”. Defendants took
these actions and made these representations for the purpose of
profiting from this untrue, misleading and deceptive scheme.
72. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants filmed
numerous persons other than Plaintiff in an effort to create the
television show “Scare Tactics”. In each “episode” which
Defendants recorded, videotaped and/or filmed, Defendants utilized
similar false and misleading statements to terrorize nonconsenting
persons and surreptitiously record their emotional trauma, all in
violation of Business & Professions Code ß17200 and ß17500, Penal
Code ß632, et. seq., Civil Code ß1708.8, among other statutory
prohibitions. Defendants’ conduct constituted unfair competition under
Business & Professions Code ß17200 in that it was unfair, unlawful
and/or fraudulent.
73. As a result of Defendants’ violation of Business &
Professions Code ß17200, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the
general public to obtain injunctive relief to stop and further unfair,
unlawful or fraudulent business practices, and to obtain disgorgement of
Defendants’ ill-gotten gains or unlawful profits.
75. Defendants, and each of them, conspired with each other to cause
the damages and injuries to plaintiff as part of an ongoing enterprise
to produce a multi-episode series for the Sci-Fi Channel.
76. As a result of Defendants’ action, Plaintiff has incurred
economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
77. Defendants’ conduct described herein was done with a conscious
disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent to vex, injure or
annoy Plaintiff such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice under
California Civil Code ß 3294, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary or
punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each
of them, as follows:
1. For economic damages, including past and future medical expenses
and lost wages in an amount to be awarded according to proof on those
claims appropriate and where requested only.
2. For noneconomic damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress
in an amount to be awarded according to proof;
3. For treble damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof
on those claims where requested only; 4. Punitive and exemplary damages
in an amount to be awarded according to proof on those claims for
intentional conduct only;
5. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent
Defendants from presenting any of the audio or visual recording of
Plaintiff’s victimization to anyone;
6. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing
Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair, unlawful or
fraudulent business practice of surreptitiously recording the
traumatized reactions of any other persons in the future;
7. On behalf of the general public, restitution or disgorgement of
all ill-gotten gains or profits from Defendants as a result of their
unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practices;
8. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit herein on those
causes of action where available; and
9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
DATED: February _, 2003
SOLOMON, SALTSMAN, & JAMISON SOLOMON,
SALTSMAN & JAMISON
By ______________________
STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON
R BRUCE EVANS
BY _____________________
STEPHEN ALLEN JAMISON
R. BRUCE EVANS
Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys
practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all
related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Land Use
Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, Gaming
Law, as well as Personal Injury litigation. Solomon Saltsman &
Jamieson can be contacted at 800-405-4222.
|
