SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-09-2014 10:16 am Case Number: CGC-14-539196 Filing Date: May-09-2014 10:07 Filed by: ELIAS BUTT Juke Box: 001 Image: 04477501 COMPLAINT CHIU YU AU et al VS. JENNIFER VEILLEUX et al 001004477501 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.suMODNS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: JENNIFER VEILLEUX; LYFT, INC.; (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): and DOES 1-50, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: CHIU YU AU; CHIU KWONG (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): AU NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center eo your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form, If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attomey right away. If you do not know an altomey, you may want to call an attomey referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the Califomia Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Set ip Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selthelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and Costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be pald before the court will dismiss the case. IAVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacién a continuacién Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citacién y papeles legales para presenter una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandente. Una carta o una llamada felefénica no 1o protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en /a corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar pare su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacién en el Centro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de Califomia {(www.sucorte.ca.gov), en fa biblioteca de leyes de su condacio o en la corte que fe quede més cerca. Si no puede pagar Ia cuota de presentacién, pida al secretario de la corte que Je dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y fa corte le podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros requisitos les. Es recomendable que liame a un abogado inmediatamente, Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Hamar a un servicio de remisin a abogados. S/ no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con jos requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en ef Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) 0 poniéndose en contacto con la corte o ef colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 més de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o une concesién de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que agar e/ gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso. he name and address of the court Is: (El nombre y direccién de Ia corte es): San Francisco County Superior Court 400 McAllister Street 400 McAllister Street San Francisco 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: {El nombre, la direccién y el numero de teléfonc del abogado de! demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Christopher B. Dolan (SBN 165358) (415) 421-2800 Marjorie J. Heinrich (SBN 124682) The Dolan Law Firm San Francisco, CA 94102 CLERK OF THE COURT les (resnay _MAY ~9 2014 clerk, By Deputy (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1 as an individual defendant. 2. (] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3. (] on behalf of (specify): under: [(] CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) {—) CeP 416.40 (association or partnership) [—_] CCP.416.90 (authorized person) (J other (specify): 4. [7] by personal delivery on (date): Paget oft For Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS sch Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465 is Judicial Council of Cettornia ‘SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2003]Ce NY DH wD sos 13 14 28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM “dhtona beet” SANFRANCIECO, sie Tee cate) <2t2800 Fae (an a 20 Co 0 SUMMOy 13 7 2 ISSUED Christopher B. Dolan (SBN 165358) Fi Marjorie J. Heinrich (SBN 124682) wh dy, te D Ethan A. Wimert (SBN 266059) ounly cf San Faerie THE DOLAN LAW FIRM The Dolan Building MAY -9 2014 1438 Market Street CLE San Francisco, CA 94102 RK OF T; CourT Telephone: ial 5) 421-2800 By: as Facsimile: (415) 421-2830 uty Clore Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHIU YU AU and CHIU KWONG AU IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION CHIU YU AU; CHIU KWONG AU, case No.6 GC -14-839196 Pach COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND aintitis, DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY v. 1. NEGLIGENCE - MOTOR VEHICLE 3 NEGLIGENCE PER SE DOES 150, nee Os LYFT, INC; and | 4° LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Defendants, Case Filed: Trial Date: None Assigned BY FAX PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Chiu Yu Au is an adult female. She is the wife of Plaintiff Chiu Kwong Au. 2. Plaintiff Chiu Kwong Au is an adult male. He is the husband of Plaintiff Chiu Yu Au. 3. Defendant JENNIFER VEILLEUX (hereinafter “VEILLEUX”) is an adult female. She 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY© ° was the driver of the vehicle which caused injury. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 2 |] allege, that she was employed by Defendant LYFT, INC., and/or was their partner and/or agent. 3 4. Defendant LYFT, INC. is a corporation and a transportation network company 4 || (hereinafter “TNC”). On information and belief, and at all relevant times, LYFT, INC was the 5 || employer of VEILLUEX, and/or her partner and/or an agency relationship existed. 6 5. Plaintiffs are, ignorant of the names of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 7 |) 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this 8 | Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and 9 || believe and thereon allege that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in the same 10 || manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages herein alleged 11 || were caused by the aforementioned Defendants. 12 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief 13 }] allege, that at all times herein material to the matters alleged in this Complaint, each of the Defendants 14 || was the agent and/or employee and/or partner of each of the remaining Defendants and, in doing the 15 | things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment, 16 } and/or aided and/or abetted the others and/or ratified the acts of the others so as to make them liable 17 || for the Plaintiffs’ damages. 18 7. Defendants are liable for the acts of each other through principles of respondeat 19 || superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego and other forms of vicarious liability. 20 iE AND ION 21 8. Venue in this court is appropriate as the injuries to the Plaintiff occurred in San 22 || Francisco County. 23 9. Jurisdiction is proper in this case in that the amount in controversy is in excess of the 24 || statutory requirements of this court. 25 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 26 10. On January 17, 2014, just before 2:00 p.m., Plaintiff CHIU YU AU was walking east 27 || on Jackson Street. 28 11. As Plaintiff CHIU YU AU approached the intersection with Larkin Street, she stopped orale and looked carefully to ensure there were no oncoming vehicles before stepping into the marked LAW FIRM “gees : 2 oe COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY me Fade (418) 421-2830Com rA DAH AY DW 10 28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM. oe SAN FRANCISCO, cA mee ald) 21-20 Pa (aig ahs © ° crosswalk, 12. Plaintiff CHIU YU AU then proceeded to cross Larkin Street heading eastbound on Jackson Street in the marked crosswalk. 13. After Plaintiff CHIU YU AU had walked approximately halfway through the marked crosswalk, a vehicle driven by VEILLEUX turned left from westbound Jackson Street onto southbound Larkin Street and struck Plaintiff CHIU YU AU in the marked crosswalk. 14, The collision caused serious and significant injuries and attendant damages to Plaintiff CHIU YU AU. As a result of his wife’s injuries, Plaintiff CHIU KWONG AU suffered a loss of consortium. 15. At the time of the collision between the vehicle driven by VEILLEUX and Plaintiff CHIU YU AU, VEILLEUX was carrying a passenger in the course and scope of her employment, agency, and/or partnership with LYFT, INC. 16. Defendant LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) has been classified by the California Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter “PUC”) as a TNC. 17, Defendant LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50), through its services, provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using its application (hereinafter “Lyft APP”) or platform to connect persons wanting to procure transportation (hereinafter “USERS”), with those who, utilizing their own personal vehicles, want to provide transportation in exchange for compensation (hereinafter “DRIVERS”). 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief allege, that VEILLEUX was logged on to the Lyft APP at the time that the collision occurred and/or was viewing, monitoring and/or interacting with her wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS at or near the time of the collision. 19. Before USERS can utilize the Lyft APP, USERS must download the Lyft APP, sign in through Facebook Connect, and provide information about themselves to LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) including but not limited to their name, email address, credit card number, mobile telephone number, etc. Only registered USERS can use the Lyft APP to prearrange transportation services. 20. Before DRIVERS can participate in LYFT, INC.’s (and/or DOES 1-50) prearranged transportation service, they must apply to be a DRIVER by logging on to the Lfyt APP or LYFT INC’s 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYCO mM IN DAH Bw 28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM seme SANFRANEHCO, ca ree ali) 221-2100 Fad (408) ah 230 © oO {and/or DOES 1-50) web-based portal and providing information including but not limited to their name, phone number, address, e-mail, banking information, vehicle registration, insurance, and vehicle description. Potential drivers thereafter log on to the APP via Facebook Connect. A potential DRIVER must be at least 23 years old, own a 4 door car (year 2000 or newer), possess in-state insurance with their name on the policy, possess an in-state license, and have a “clean” driving record. A potential DRIVER must also present their vehicle to a LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) “mentor” for visual inspection, and take the “mentor” on a short test drive. LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) then evaluates the potential DRIVER and only permits those it finds suitable to become registered DRIVERS on the Lyft APP. LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) reserves the right to remove or delete DRIVERS from their system at their discretion. Therefore LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) are entirely in control of who can use their system as either a DRIVER or USER. 21. Only after USERS and DRIVERS have provided the information required by LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) can they participate in the pre-arranged transportation service. 22. _ USERS seeking transportation services provided by LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) log on to the Lyft APP through Facebook Connect. A USER is thereafter shown a GPS looking screen which displays vehicles available to provide transportation services in their area, After requesting a DRIVER, the Lyft APP alerts nearby drivers who must timely indicate their acceptance of the USER’s transportation request by manually interfacing with the Lyft APP. Once the DRIVER accepts the USER’s request that driver’s name, photo, vehicle description, user rating, and time from pickup are displayed to the USER. 23. | DRIVERS, in order to be available to provide USERS transportation services in exchange for compensation, must log on to the Lyft APP through Facebook Connect and indicate their availability. Their location and information is then visible to USERS and DRIVERS can access a screen on their electronic communication device/smart phone/GPS called a “God View” which shows them a map of where others using the system are located. 24. The PUC has found that, “clearly, each TNC is receiving either an economic benefit or a business benefit. At a minimum, they are receiving increased patronage with the growth of their businesses.” Mt q COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM manatees sanmancitco, Pry 200 Pie fa ae oa °o 25. The nature of the Lyft APP and its interface is both visual and tactile. Therefore, DRIVERS must monitor their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS so as to be aware of the location of other LYFT INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) vehicles so they can position themselves near areas of high USER demand. The Lyft APP provides for texting and phone calls and instant messaging between the DRIVER and the USER. 26... LYFT, INC, (and/or DOES 1-50) knew, or should have known use of the Lyft APP by DRIVERS, including but not limited to VEILLEUX, in the manner intended and actually required by LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) would be in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5, which states “(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving, (b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text Message, instant message, or electronic mail.” 27. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 26708 any portable Global Positioning System (GPS) many only be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone,” if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.” The Lyft APP is, by its nature, a GPS. 28. Use by LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) AND LYFT, INC. DRIVERS of a GPS while engaged in the business activity of being a LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) DRIVER is not door-to- door navigation and, therefore violates California Vehicle Code Section 26708. 29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief allege that the status of VEILLEUX as an LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) DRIVER, including but not limited to the use and/or monitoring of the Lyft APP and its interface, was a proximate cause of this collision including but not limited to its causing VEILLEUX to be distracted while driving. Ut 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYCod nanunewen = QAaraonios 17 28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM nes sanraanenco, " rate i (a S12 © 3 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief allege that the design of the Lyft APP and DRIVER interface, requires drivers to use the APP in such a manner as to violate the law, including but not limited to California Vehicle Sections 23123.5 and/or 26708, thereby causing distraction to DRIVERS, including VEILLEUX and, further, that VEILLEUX’s distraction was a substantial factor in causing the subject accident and resulting harm. FIRST CAUSE OF Against All Defendants 31. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-30. 32, Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable/due care as well as statutory duties established in California Vehicle Code Sections 21950, 23123.5 and/or 26708. 33. Defendant VEILLEUX, on January 17, 2014, while operating her vehicle in the scope and course of her employment/agency/partnership with LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50), was negligent and did breach one of more of those duties and said breach was the proximate cause of personal injuries and damages to Plaintiffs CHIU YU AU and CHIU KWONG AU. 34. Asa proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered significant general and special damages in amounts to be determined at trial. 35. The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ence is By Plaintiffs CHIU YuA and CHIU KWONG AU Against Defendants LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) 36. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of paragraphs 1-35. 37. Defendants LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) were negligent in their development, implementation, and use of the Lyft APP in the provision of prearranged transportation services in 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYCoe N DHF wH RPP PN NNN | Be Be ew ew ew ew ee IAA BKB YUH | SOA ABDAARBH AS 28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM Me SAN FRANCHCO, cA som Te, cai) 21-2000 FA Bho © 0 such a manner so as to lead to DRIVERS, including VEILLEUX, to be distracted and/or inattentive, while driving. 38. Defendants LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) required its DRIVERS to use a smartphone APP and/or GPS that causes, and did cause, driver distraction and inattention to the roadway, such that it was the proximate cause of the subject accident and resulting personal injuries to Plaintiffs CHTU YU AU and CHIU KWONG AU. 39. Asa proximate result of the negligence of Defendant LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50), and each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered significant special and general damages in amounts to be determined at trial. 40. The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION By Plaintiffs cue’ ‘ iO ond CHIU KWONG AU Against All Defendants 41. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-40. 42. — California Vehicle Codes 21950, 23123.5 and/or 26708 were laws implemented by the State of California to protect individuals from injury or death due to inattentive or distracted drivers. Plaintiffs, and each of them, were the class of persons intended to be protected by these laws. 43. Defendants, and each of them, therefore owed Plaintiffs a duty to conduct their affairs in accordance with California Vehicle Codes 21950, 23123.5, and/or 26708. 44, Defendants, and each of them, breached one or more of the duties established by California Vehicle Code Sections 21950, 23123.5, and/or 26708. Such conduct constitutes Negligence Per Se. 45, As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered significant general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Mt 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYCO dA HAH Fw HW 28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM | see Te: Star an00 FR 0 © 0 46. The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was engaged in with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, FOURTH CAUSE OF ACT Ion Strict Product Liability - Bystander Theo Us nC NG AU By Plaintiffs CHIU YU AU and CHIU KWO! Against LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) 47. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set fourth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-46. 48. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon said information and belief allege, that Defendant LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50), designed and/or distributed the Lyft APP and/or GPS interface/system that LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) DRIVERS, including VEILLEUX, were required to use and furthermore trained or failed to adequately train them on how to use the Lyft APP and interface. 49. In doing so LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) did place the APP and GPS system into use and on the market. 50. LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) had, or should have had, knowledge that the Lyft APP and/or GPS interface would be used without inspection for defects and would be used in such a way as to violate one or more provisions of the California Vehicle Code and/or to create a significant risk of the type of harm suffered by the Plaintiffs in this action. 51. The defects in the Lyft APP and/or GPS interface were the direct and proximate cause of harm to Plaintiffs including the phyiscal and emotional injuries suffered by Plaintiff CHIU YU AU and the injuries that flow therefrom to Plaintiff CHIU KWONG AU. Strict liability extends not only in favor of the users and consumers, but also in favor of bystanders, such as pedestrians. (Elmore v. American Motors Corp., (1969) 70 Cal.2D 578, 585-587; Baker v. Chrysler Corp., (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 710, 715, Preissman v, Ford Motor Co., (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 841-855.) 52. The Lyft APP and/or GPS interface was defective. 53. As a proximate result of the product defect, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered significant general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. et COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYCOIN AH ew DH = Deeg ee Oe eee get pg eet eee IAA RK Y’ON | SOOarAARTBDHAS 28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM wapBtAN bec: ature oes SAN FRANCIECO, A me ale) .20 Fae (8) 21-2800 © 0 54. The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was engaged in with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, and Supervision By Plaintiffs CHIU YU AU and CHIU KWONG AU Against LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) 55: Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set fourth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-54. 56. LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) owed the general public a duty of reasonable care in the hiring, training, and supervision of its DRIVERS. 57. LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) did breach that duty of care in the hiring, retention, training, and/or supervision of Defendant VEILLEUX who was unfit to be a provider of transportation, and who was not adequately trained or supervised in her driving and/or use of the Lyft i APP and the dangers inherent therein. LYFT, INC. (and/or DOES 1-50) knew or should have known i that Defendant VEILLEUX would be using the Lyft APP in a manner which would distract her and i lead to a risk of the very type of danger and harm that occurred on January 17, 2014. 58. The breach of that duty was the proximate cause of harm to the Plaintiffs and caused them to suffer significant special and general damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 59. The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was engaged in with fraud, i oppression, and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. SIXTH CAUS: TION i Loss of Consortium By Plaintiff CHIU KWONG AU Against all Defendants 60. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set fourth herein, the contents E of Paragraphs 1-59. MW 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYeo eand AW ek wD 28 THE DOLAN LAW FIRM wamenaee SANRANCHCO, oe me ct) at 200 Fa Ge) aah © 0 61. Plaintiff CHIU KWONG AU, because of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, suffered a loss of consortium with his wife CHIU YU AU. 62. Asa proximate result of the acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff CHIU KWONG AU suffered significant general damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 63. The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was engaged in with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows: FIRST THROU: HCA’ OF Ai i 1. For special and general damages as allowed by law; i 2. For punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294; 3. Prejudgment interest; i 4. For costs of suit herein incurred; and 5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. Dated: April 32 2014 THE DOLAN FIRM By: Christopher B. Dolan, Esq. i Marjorie J. Heinrich, Esq. Ethan A. Wimert, E sg Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHIU YU AU, CHIU KWONG AU Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury. Dated: April 3°, 2014 By: Christopher B. Dofan, Esq. Marjorie J. Heinrich, Esq. Ethan A. Wimert, Esq. Attomeys for Plaintiffs CHIU YU AU, CHIU KWONG AU 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, ho: ‘and adress): 7 ° FOR COURT USE ONLY Christopher B. Dolan (SBN 165358) Marjorie J. Heinrich (SBN 124682) F I L E D The Dolan Law Firm Superior Court of California 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 ae TELEPHONE NO. (415) 421-2800 — Faxno. MAY -9 2014 ATTORNEY FOR (Name Plaintiffs ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco CLERK OF aa puty Clerk ounty of Sant Francie sect aooress 400 McAllister Street BY: waning aporess. 400 McAllister Street cry ann ziecope: San Francisco 94102 sranch mame: Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction CASENAME: Au v. Veilleux CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation ad palin Limited { Counter | ‘Joinder moun OT Filed with first appearance by defendant Gemanded 5 ooo Seranged is (Cal, Rules of Court, wale 340) items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on pay 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation X_] Auto (22) Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal, Rules of Court, rules 3,400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) ["] Rule 3.740 collections (09) [) AntitrustTrade regulation (03) Other Pl/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property Other collections (09 Construction defect (10) eee ate ad Insurance pach i [) Mass tort (40) Co Asbestos (04) [£5 other contract (37) [__] Securities titigation (28) [J Product tiabitity (24) Real Property EnvironmentalToxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) ([—] Eminent domain/inverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the [J other puPDAWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort J Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) (J Business torvunfair business practice (07) [—J Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment ("7 civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement of judgment (20) [] Defamation (13) (] Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint [—__] Fraud (16) (] Residential (32) [J rico (27) [5 intettectuat property (19) ["] Drugs (38) £1 other complaint (not specified above) (42) [_] Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition [7] other non-PYPDWD tort (35) (_] Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate govemance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) [__] Other petition (not specified above) (43) {—_] Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02) [__] Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. Thiscase [_]is [X]isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the Califomia Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the lors requiring exceptional judicial management: seis Ry F a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. ["] Extensive motion Practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. [] Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision . Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. LX) monetary b. (_] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [XJ punitive . Number of causes of action (specify); Four (4) 3. 4 5. Thiscase [—] is [X] isnot actass action suit, 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may YseTorm CM-015.) Dat May 9, 2014 > él Christopher B, Dolan (SBI 65358 § (except small claims cases or cases filed N {TYPE OR PRINT NAME} ‘ules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result} NOTICE Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proct under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and institutions Code). (Cal. R in sanctions. ¢ File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. « If this case is complex under rule 3,400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. _ Be Z Ee eae areHeeeeee eee Unies this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex Case, this Cover sheet will be us "CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, Cal. Rules of Court, ul 220, 3.400-3. Form Adopted for Mandatory Use 3.740. Cal, Standards of Judicial Administration, sid, 3.10 Judicial Council of Caltornia ‘CHO10 (Rav. July 1, 2007),