3'13 ?iunfiei (I) Joseph M. Ferrante, Esq. SB. No. 86265 Law Of?ce of Joseph M. Ferrante BOX uggr'or 0? California Monrovia, CA 910147 6 6 I 0* Los Anaeles Tel.: 626 359-141 ax: 2 359- 717 MAY 3 I 2016 G. Jacqueline Pelaez, Esq. - SB. No.: 207067 Sherri R. Ca . . Law Of?ce of Vicken I. Simonian By We Officer/Clerk 131 North El Molino Avenue, Suite 300 aunya olden Deputy Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel: (626) 584-0043; Fax: (626) 584-0369 Attorneys for Plaintiff, F36: 1-1 I '1 2017 TRIAL: 1 1 I 3 I 2017 080- 5 3 1/ 2019 Carmen Farias SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STANLEY 9 Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR: CARMEN FARIAS, an individual, Plaintiff, 1. Negligence [California Civil Code ?17l4(a)] including ?Gross Negligence? [City of Santa Barbara v. Superl'z'or Court (Janeway) (2007) 41 Cal.4l 747; California Civil Code ?1668]; vs. INC., a Delaware corporation; BEVERLY HILLS, LLC, a California limited liability company; ANGELA 2. Negligence: Failure to Follow Own DAVIS, an individual and resident of the State Policies and Procedures [California Civil Code of California; and, DOES 1 through 30, 3. Negligence: in the Compensation, Supervision, Training and Retention of Employees [California Civil Code inclusive, Defendants. was 4. Violation of California Civil Code ?1812.82 (failure to provide copy of written contract) (California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq.); 5. Strict Products Liability (Defectiv Design and/or Manufacture); .I in . tram: ?11 6. Strict Products Liability Warn); A 7. Breach of Express WarrantiesBreach of Implied Warranties; and, Hd 1313' Cu? IE *3 Complaint - Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. 3 T- "a .1113: ??9bH33 060 :33: .: '3 '9 i; 9. Negligent Products Liability. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY COMES NOW the plaintiff, CARMEN FARIAS, an individual, and for causes of action against defendants, INC., a Delaware corporation, BEVERLY HILLS, LLC, a California limited liability company, ANGELA DAVIS, an individual and resident of the State of California, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, alleges as follows. Paragraphs Applicable to All Causes of Action 1. At all times herein mentioned, defendant, Soulecle Inc. (hereinafter was a Delaware corporation, authorized to conduct business, and, in fact, conducting business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Further, at all times herein mentioned, was a ?health studio? (hereinafter ?health Studio?), as such term is used and de?ned at California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq. Further, at times herein mentioned, provided ?health studio services? (hereinafter ?health studio services?), as such term is used and de?ned at California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq. Further, at times herein mentioned, provided health studio services at its health studio, which health studio was located at 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California. Complaint - 2 - Carmen arias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. all times herein mentioned, defendant, Soulecle Beverly Hills, LLC (hereinafter was a California limited liability company, authorized to conduct business, and, in fact, conducting business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Further, at all times herein mentioned, LLC was a health studio, as such term is used and de?ned at California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq. Further, at times hereinmentioned, LLC provided health studio services, as such term is used and de?ned at California Civil Code 1812.80, et seq. Further, at times herein mentioned, LLC provided health studio services at its health studio, which health studio was located at 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 3. At all times herein mentioned, defendant, Angela Davis (hereinafter was an individual, who resided, and is residing, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Further, at all times herein mentioned, ANGELA DAVIS was an employee and agent of LLC and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, and each of them. Further, at all times herein mentioned, ANGELA DAVIS was acting within the course and scope of her employment and agency with SOUCYCLE, LLC and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, and each of them. 4. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff, Carmen Farias (hereinafter was an individual, who resided, and is residing, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Further, at all times herein mentioned, CARMEN was a ?customer? and ?buyer? as such terms are used and de?ned at California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq. Further, at all times herein mentioned, CARMEN was an employee of Banafsheh, Danesh avid, PC (hereinafter Complaint - 3 Carmen arias v. Souleele Inc., etc., et al. 3'13 27' 25'3" aim.?- i Further, at all times herein mentioned, was located at 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900, City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 5. CARMEN is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants herein sued was the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining defendants and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment and that such acts were rati?ed by each of the remaining defendants. Further, that each of the defendants herein sued aided, abetted, cooperated with, and/or conspired with one another to do the acts herein alleged. 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of DOE defendants 1 through 30 are presently unknown to CARMEN, who therefore sues said defendants by such ?ctitious names. The ?ctitiously named defendants include, but are not limited to, the principals, agents, servants and employees of the defendants identi?ed. Each of the defendants, herein designated as a DOE, is negligently or otherwise legally reSponsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to CARMEN, as herein alleged. CARMEN will amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of the ?ctitiously named defendants when the same have been ascertained. 7. CARMEN is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that each of the ?ctitiously designated defendants are jointly and severely responsible for the events and happenings referred to herein and are liable for all damages herein alleged. 8. CARMEN is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that, at all times herein mentioned, DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, and each of Complaint - 4 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. 5:33 2 L5) 253; tri?e 1. them, were a health studio, as such term is used and de?ned at California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq. Further, at times herein mentioned, DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, and each of them, provided health studio services, as such term is used and de?ned at California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq. Further, at times herein mentioned, DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, and each of them, provided health studio services at their health studio, which health studio was located at 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 9. Hereinafter, LLC and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, will be collectively referred to as the Hereinafter, the health studio, located at 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, will be referred to as the HEALTH At all times herein mentioned, the HEALTH STUDIO consisted, in part, of a foyer that included a front desk and a workout room (hereinafter 10. CARMEN is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that, at all times herein mentioned, DOES 6 through 9, inclusive, and each of them, were employees and agents of the DEFENDANTS and each of them. Further, at all times herein mentioned, DOES 6 through 9, inclusive, and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of their employment and agency with the DEFENDANTS, and each of them. Further, at all times herein mentioned, DOES 6 through 9, inclusive, and each of them, were residents of the State of California. 11. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDAN TS offered spinning classes (hereinafter or at their HEALTH STUDIO to ?customers? (hereinafter ?customer? or ?customers?) and Complaint - 5 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc, etc., at al. ?buyers? (hereinafter ?buyer? or ?buyers?), as such terms are used and de?ned at California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq. A SPINNING CLASS is a group indoor activity utilizing specialized stationary cycles. A SPINNING CLASS is led by one or more cycle instructors located at the front of the class. 12. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS held their SPINNING CLASSES in the WORKOUT ROOM. The WORKOUT ROOM was equipped with overhead lighting. The light level generated by the overhead lighting was controlled by the cycle instructor(s) during the SPINNING CLASS. The WORKOUT ROOM was also equipped with a sound system. The sound system carried music and the voice of the cycle instructor(s). The volume level of the music and/or voice emanating from the sound system was controlled by the cycle instructor(s) during the SPINNING CLASS. The cycle instructor(s) was/were provided with a headset (headphones and microphone). The headset (headphones and microphone) was connected to the sound system. The microphone allowed the cycle instructor(s) to communicate with the customers and buyers in the SPINNING CLASS by way of the sound system (usually over the music being played simultaneously). The customers and buyers in the SPINNING CLASS were no; provided with a headset and, therefore, could n_ot communicate with the cycle instructor(s) by way of the sound system. 13. At all times herein mentioned, the SPINNING CLASSES centered on the use of a ?spinning cycle? (hereinafter The SPINNING CYCLE is dramatically different from traditional bicycles and even many stationary bicycles. The differences include, but are not limited to, all of thefo?oudng: Complaint - 6 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. itii 1' its? . a SPINNING CYCLE is stationary, has a weighted front wheel (hereinafter ??ywhee1?) and no back wheel; . the saddle of the SPINNING CYCLE adjusts ?up and down? and ?forward and backwards;? the two (2) adjustments are controlled by two (2) separate knobs on the frame of the SPINNING . attached to both the left and right side of the saddle of the SPINNING CYCLE is a dumbbell; . the handlebars of the SPINNING CYCLE adjust ?up and down? by the use of a knob on the frame of the SPINNING . the SPINNING CYCLE has no ?pedal brakes? or ?handbrakes;? the rotation of the ?ywheel is slowed by a knob on the frame of the SPINNING the knob to slow the rotation of the ?ywheel could be as much as 14 inches below the handle bars, depending on the size of the rider (as above noted, the handlebars are adjustable); the SPINNING CYCLE requires special cleated shoes which attach to the pedals of the SPINNING . the ?ywheel and the pedals of the SPINNING CYCLE move in unison; that is, as the pedals rotate, so does the ?ywheel rotate; and, . on a SPINNING CYCLE, the pedals do not stop once the rider stops pedaling; the pedals continue to rotate at the speed of the ?ywheel, as the pedals are powered by the momentum of the ?ywheel. The SPINNING CYCLES, to be used by customers and buyers, were lined up in several rows within the WORKOUT ROOM. Each row contained approximately 10 to 15 Complaint - 7 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. ?:33 27.2 28: rue! :1 7.3 SPINNING CYCLES. All of the SPINNING CYCLES were facing the front of the WORKOUT ROOM. At the front of the WORKOUT ROOM was the SPINNING used by the cycle instructor(s). The SPINNING used by the cycle instructor(s) was/were facing the rows of SPINNING CYCLES used by the customers and buyers. 15. CARMEN is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that, at all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had. developed policies and procedures (hereinafter the POLICIES AND for the instruction of ?new riders? (customers and buyers who were taking classes at the HEALTH STUDIO for the ?rst time) (hereinafter or CARMEN is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES for NEW RIDERS included, but were not limited to, instructions on the safe operation and use of a SPINNING CYCLE. The POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, for the safe operation of a SPINNING CYCLE, included, but were not limited to, each, and all, of the following: a. a 15 (?fteen) minute introduction to spinning and the SPINNING including instruction on the relationship between the ?ywheel and the pedals of the SPINNING b. instruction on the location and use of the two (2) knobs for the adjustment of the saddle of the SPINNING c. instruction on the location and use of the knob for the adjustment of the handlebars of the SPINNING d. instruction on the location and use of the knob for slowing the ?ywheel of the SPINNING Complaint - 8 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc, etc., et a1. air: 27' 28' ?tutiief e. a warning not to lean forward on the handlebars of the SPINNING CYCLE, when the ?ywheel was rotating; f. a warning not to get out of the saddle of the SPINNING CYCLE, when the ?ywheel was rotating; g. instruction on the purpose and proper use of the special cleated shoes needed for the SPINNING h. inquiring of each NEW RIDER as to his or her overall ?tness level; and, i. instruction on what action should be taken if the NEW RIDER became fatigued. 16. CARMEN is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that DOE 6 and ANGELA job title, while they were employed by the DEF ENDANTS, was ?cycle instructor.? As a cycle instructor, DOE 6 and ANGELA DAVIS were responsible for each, and all, of the following: a. b. instructing SPINNING CLASSES at the HEALTH implementation of the POLICIES AND training for SPINNING preparing for SPINNING developing routines; compiling playlists; communicating with customers and buyers; attending meetings held at the STUDIO and given by the DEFENDAN leading special event classes; performing various marketing functions; and, Complaint 9 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., at al. site: 2'1, 2 a, 11131;: .l k. providing for the safety and wellbeing of customers and buyers, while those customers and buyers were present at the HEALTH STUDIO. 17. CARMEN is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief alleges, that, at all times herein mentioned, DOE 6 and ANGELA DAVIS were only compensated (paid) by the DEFENDANTS for the time DOE 6 and ANGELA DAVIS spent instructing the SPINNING CLASSES (subparagraph 16a, above). That is, DOE 6 and ANGELA DAVIS were n_ot compensated (not paid) for all of the other tasks DOE 6 and ANGELA DAVIS were required to perform for the DEFENDANTS (tasks identi?ed in subparagraphs 16b through subparagraph 16k, above), while in the course and scope of their employment. Hereinafter, the tasks identi?ed in subparagraphs 16b. through 16k., inclusive, will be referred to as ?the non-compensated tasks.? 18. CARMEN is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief alleges, that, sometime in early 2014, contracted with the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, to provide a SPINNING CLASS to the employees of including CARMEN (hereinafter the contract between and the DEFENDAN TS will be referred to as the At all times herein relevant, each of the employees, who attended the SPINNING CLASS, was a ?customer? and ?buyer? as such terms are used and de?ned at California Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq. CARMEN is further informed and believes that, in consideration of the DEFENDAN TS providing a SPINNING CLASS (pursuant to the CONTRACT) to the employees of the DEFENDANTS charged and received a fee from As additional consideration for providing the SPINNING CLASS to the employees of it was understood that the DEFENDAN TS would be receiving the names, telephone Complaint 10 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. 54?. :1 i1! areas numbers and street addresses of the employees, who attended the SPINNING CLASS. This information would provide the DEFENDANTS the use of the employee names, telephone numbers and street addresses for future marketing purposes. 19. On or about June 9, 2014, and pursuant to the CONTRACT, announced to the employees of including CARMEN, that the employees would be going to the HEALTH STUDIO for a SPINNING CLASS. Initially, the employees were scheduled to go to the HEALTH STUDIO on June 20, 2014. Thereafter, and on or about June 16, 20.14, the date of the SPINNING CLASS was delayed until 2:00 P.M. on July 11, 2014. 20. On or about the afternoon of July 10, 2014, the employees of including CARMEN, were given a document entitled New Rider Waiver Form? (hereinafter The WAIVER consisted of one page and, in part, required the NEW RIDER to provide their name, address and telephone number. The NEW RIDER was also required to date and sign the WAIVER. CARMEN did not ?ll-out, did not sign nor did she date the WAIVER on July 10, 2014. 21. On July 11, 2014, at about 1:30 pm, CARMEN ?lled out, signed and dated the WAIVER. She left the WAIVER on her work desk at CARMEN never handed the WAIVER to the DEFENDANTS, or to anyone. CARMEN never authorized the delivery of the WAIVER to any of the DEFENDANTS, or to anyone. CARMEN was never offered, nor did she ever receive, a cepy of the ?lled out, signed and dated WAIVER. 22. At about 1:40 pm, on July 11, 2014, the employees, including CARMEN, changed into their workout attire and walked across the street to the HEALTH STUDIO to attend the SPINNING CLASS. In all, there were approximately 25 to 30 Complaint - 11 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. ?139 2'1, s. 2872 t??w :3 employees, who walked over to the HEALTH STUDIO. Hereinafter, the SPINNING CLASS in which the employees (including CARMEN) participated on July 11, 2014, will be referred to as the SPINNING 23. As CARMEN entered the foyer of the HEALTH STUDIO, CARMEN saw employees signing what appeared to be an attendance sheet located at the front desk. It appeared that DOES 7 and 8 were assisting the employees. DOES 7 and 8 also assisted CARMEN when she approached the front desk. DOE 7 and/or DOE 8 handed CARMEN a pair of black shoes. The black shoes had what appeared to be some form of cleat attached to their soles. CARMEN was directed by DOES 7 and 8 to put on the black shoes. CARMEN was then directed by DOES 7 and 8 to the WORKOUT ROOM. As CARMEN entered the WORKOUT ROOM, the WORKOUT ROOM was well lit by the overhead lights and music was being played at a moderate volume through the sound system. At this time, CARMEN and the other employees were directed by DOES 7 and 8 to mount their respective SPINNING CYCLE, attach their cleated black shoes to the pedals and wait for either DOE 6 and/or ANGELA DAVIS. DOES 7 and 8 identi?ed DOE 6 and/or ANGELA DAVIS as being the cycle instructor(s) who would conduct the SPINNING CLASS. CARMEN selected one of the remaining SPINNING CYCLES which was located a few rows from the front of the WORKOUT ROOM. At this time and place, CARMEN could verbally communicate with her fellow employees (who mounted SPINNING CYCLES near her) and could easily see all areas of the WORKOUT ROOM. DOES 7 and 8 exited the WORKOUT ROOM. Several minutes later, DOE 9 entered the WORKOUT ROOM to make sure that the employees, including CARMEN, had secured their cleated black shoes to the pedals of their SPINNING Complaint - 12 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc, et a1. CYCLE. At this time, DOE 9 had to attach cleated black shoes to the pedals of SPINNING CYCLE, as CARMEN was unaware how to do so. 24. At the time that CARMEN entered the HEALTH STUDIO on July 11, 2014, to participate in the SPINNING CLASS, each, and all, of the following were true: a. CARMEN was a NEW b. CARMEN had never been to the HEALTH 0. CARMEN had never been to a SPINNING (1. although CARMEN had ridden a traditional bicycle, CARMEN had never ridden a SPINNING e. CARMEN had never received instruction on how to ride a SPINNING and, f. CARMEN had not engaged in a physical ?tness regimen for several years. 25. Soon thereafter, DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS entered the WORKOUT ROOM. Doe 6 or ANGELA DAVIS asked all NEW RIDERS to raise their hands. In response to DOE 6 or ANGELA direction, the majority (approximately 20 persons) of the people in the WORKOUT ROOM, including CARMEN, raised their hand. After the raise of hands, DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS commenced the SPINNING CLASS. 26. At g9 time prior to, or during, the SPINNING CLASS, did anyone including, but not limited to, the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS and DOES 6 through 9, do any of the following: a. provide CARMEN with an introduction to Spinning; b. instruct CARMEN on the use of the SPINNING Complaint - 13 - Carmen arias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. Ls.) 28instruct CARMEN on the relationship between the ?ywheel and the pedals of the SPINNING . instruct CARMEN as to the location and/or use of the two (2) knobs for the adjustment of the saddle of the SPINNING . instruct CARMEN on the pr0per use of the dumbbells located on each side of the saddle of the SPINNING instruct CAMEN as to the location and/or use of the knob for the adjustment of the handlebars of the SPINNING . instruct CARMEN as to the location and/or use of the knob for slowing the momentum of the ?ywheel of the SPINNING . warn CARMEN not to lean forward on the handlebars of the SPINNING CYCLE, when the ?ywheel was rotating; warn CARMEN not to get out of the saddle of the SPINNING CYCLE, when the ?ywheel was rotating; instruct CARMEN on the purpose and/or proper use of the cleated black shoes needed for the SPINNING . inquire of CARMEN as to the level of her physical conditioning; and, instruct CARMEN on what action should be taken by CARMEN if she (CARMEN) became fatigued. As DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS commenced the SPINNING CLASS, DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS caused the volume of the sound system in the WORKOUT ROOM to be radically turned up. The volume was turned up to such a level that the music was now blaring and CARMEN was unable to verbally communicate with any other person in the Complaint - 14 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. 1:12 27?. 2a SPINNING CLASS. Only DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS was able to communicate with CARMEN and the other riders by way of the cycle instructor?s microphone which was connected to the sound system. 28. As DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS commenced the SPINNING CLASS, DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS also caused the lights in the WORKOUT ROOM to be turned down to a level where the WORKOUT ROOM was cast into a shadowy darkness. 29. At the direction of DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS, CARMEN and the other employees began to pedal their respective SPINNING CYCLES. DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS demanded that the riders pedal ever faster. CARMEN could hear DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS mocking some of the other riders because they were not keeping up with DOE 6 or ANGELA pace. After about 20 minutes of pedaling, DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS ordered CARMEN and the other employees, while still pedaling, to grab a dumbbell in each hand (from the left and right side of the saddle of their respective SPINNING CYCLE). While holding a dumbbell in each hand, and still pedaling, DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS ordered CARMEN and the other employees to raise their buttocks from the saddle of the SPINNING CYCLE and stand on the pedals. While standing on the pedals, with a dumbbell in each hand and still pedaling, DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS ordered CARMEN and the other employees to raise their chests away from the handlebars and move their torsos to the left and then to the right. CARMEN and the other riders where then ordered by DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS to put down the dumbbells but continue pedaling. At this point, legs began to weaken. She tried to stop pedaling, but the pedals continued to turn. DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS now ridiculed CARMEN for slowing the speed of her SPINNING CYCLE. DOE 6 or ANGELA DAVIS barked at CARMEN and the other riders that ?we don?t take breaks.? Complaint - 15 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. ii, 23. J?sr?k.? is .4. 9. CARMEN was embarrassed that she (CARMEN) was being called out in front of her bosses and fellow employees. The shame caused CARMEN to momentarily attempt to pedal faster. CARMEN was unable to do so. Her legs were shaking. CARMEN had to stop the pedals from turning, but she did not know how to stop the pedals. To her knowledge, there was no brake. CARMEN was in serious peril. With the music blaring, and in the shadowy darkness, CARMEN was isolated on her SPINNING CYCLE. Her feet were locked to the pedals and the pedals just kept turning. Fatigue and disorientation overcame CARMEN and she fell to her right and off of the saddle of the SPINNING CYCLE. Although her head and torso were now lying to the right side of the SPINNING CYCLE, left and right foot remained locked to the pedals. The momentum of the ?ywheel kept the pedals turning. Agony overcame CARMEN, as her left ankle and foot were being separated with each rotation of the pedals. CARMEN was enduring the repeated dislocation occurring within her left ankle. By the time the pedals did stop, CARMEN had been catastrophically injured. 30. At all times herein mentioned, California Civil Code ?1812.82 (hereinafter ??1812.82?) was in full force and effect. On July 11, 2014, ?1812.82 read as follows: Every contract for health studio services shall be in writing and shall be subject to the provisions of this title. A copy of the written contract shall be given to the customer at the time he signs the contract. 31. On July 11, 2014, and in violation of ?1812.82, the DEF ENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS and DOES 6 through 9 failed to give to CARMEN a copy of the ?written contract? (WAIVER) at the time CARMEN signed it. In fact, the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS and DOES 6 through 9 never gave CARMEN a signed copy of the WAIVER. To the extent that CARMEN also signed a ?waiver? when she executed the Complaint - 16 Carmen arias v. SOulecle Inc, etc., et al. attendance sheet on July 11, 2014 (at the front desk of the HEALTH STUDIO), the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS and DOES 6 through 9 also failed to give CARMEN a copy of this document as well. 32. At all times herein mentioned, California Civil Code ?1812.91 (hereinafter ??1812.9l?) was in full force and effect. On July 11, 2014, ?1812.91 read as follows: Any contract for health studio services which does not comply with the applicable provisions of this title shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy. 33. As a result ofthe provisions of?1812.82 and ?1812.91, the WAIVER cannot be enforced against CARMEN by the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9, or any of them. 34. As a result of the fact that the WAIVER was never delivered by CARMEN to any of the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9, or any of them, the WAIVER cannot be enforced against CARMEN by the DEFENDAN TS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9, or any of them. 35. The acts, and failure to act, of the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9, inclusive, and each of them, as identi?ed in paragraphs 16, 17, 26, 27, 28 and 29, represented an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct employed by health studios in the providing of health studio services including, but not limited to, SPINNING CLASSES. As such, the acts, and failure to act, of the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9, inclusive, and each of them, as identi?ed in paragraphs 16, 17, 26, 27, 28 and 29, constituted ?gross negligence.? Complaint - 17 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. 222:?? 2 ?7 t-Cx?ti 28. - tat. us .4: u? 36. To the extent that the WAIVER is a release of liability which purports to release liability for future ?gross negligence? on the part of the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9, or any of them, the WAIVER violates public policy and is unenforceable by the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9, or any of them. To the extent that CARMEN also signed a ?waiver? when she executed the attendance sheet on July 11, 2014 (at the front desk of the HEALTH STUDIO), this document also violates public policy and is unenforceable by the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS. DOES 6 through 9, or any of them. Paragraphs Applicable to the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action 37. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 15, inclusive, and each of them, held themselves out as individuals or companies experienced and capable in the design, manufacture, fabrication, and assembly of SPINNING CYCLES, which SPINNING CYCLES are marketed for use by consumers in health studios in California. 38. At all times herein mentioned, the DEF ENDANTS, Does 16 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, took part in the distribution, sale and marketing of the SPINNING CYCLES. 39. At all times herein mentioned, the DEF ENDANTS, and DOES 10 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, were engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing, assembling, compounding, testing, inspecting, packaging, labeling, fabricating, constructing, analyzing, distributing, servicing, merchandising, recommending, advertising, promoting, marketing, providing for us and selling the SPINNING CYCLE and its component parts and constituents for use by members of the general public at health studios in California. Complaint - 18 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. 40. and each of them, marketed and advertised for use by the general public the SPINNING CYCLES. 41. Further, the DEFENDANTS, and DOES 25 through 30, inclusive, The DEFENDANTS, and DOES 10 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, and their of?cers, directors, employees, and/or agents, intended and planned that the SPINNING CYCLES be marketed and sold for health studio use by consumers. Further, said of?cers, directors, employees and/or agents were informed, knew, considered, anticipated and foresaw that NEW RIDERS would use the SPINNING CYCLES and further knew and intended that the SPINNING CYCLES would be used by NEW RIDERS in health studios. 42. CARMEN is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief alleges, that the SPINNING CYCLES are, and at all relevant times were, substantially similar in their design and construction, including, but not limited to, the design and construction of their reSpective knob placement for the braking of the ?ywheel. 43. On July 11, 2014, the SPINNING CYCLE was defectively designed. On this date, it possessed a defect in design which existed at the time the product left the possession of the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30. This defect in design was a cause of injury to CARMEN and her injury resulted from the use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30 and, in fact, was foreseen by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30. 44. The SPINNING CYCLE was negligently constructed, assembled, installed, maintained and/or repaired, and the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, inclusive, negligently chose the location of the knob to slow the ?ywheel. At all times herein mentioned, the SPINNING CYCLE, as designed, manufactured, assembled and installed, presented an unreasonable risk of injury to NEW RIDERS, like CARMEN, and the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, knew or should Complaint l9 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc, etc., et a1. have known that the SPINNING CYCLE presented the unreasonable risk of injury to NEW RIDERS, like CARMEN, who were foreseeable users. 45. The SPINNING CYCLE was defective in design because: it was constructed in such a way as to create ambiguity as to which knob, if any, on the SPINNING CYCLE would slow the momentum of the ?ywheel and thereby slow the rotation of the pedals; and, failed to perform safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. The SPINNING CYCLE was defective because without proper instruction as to the existence and location of the knob for slowing the momentum of the ?ywheel, a NEW RIDER would not be able to slow the momentum of the ?yvimeel, particularly at a time when the NEW RIDER was in physical distress and/or in a position of peril. Further, the SPINNING CYCLE was defective in design, in that, there was presented, by the nature of the design, a risk of danger inherent in the design which outweighed any bene?ts of that design. The gravity of the danger posed by the design, the likelihood that danger would cause damage and the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design at the time of manufacture all outweigh any bene?ts from the design employed. Further, reasonable and available alternative designs which would not have presented the risk of injury which this design did present, should have been employed and would not have presented any adverse consequences to either the product or the consumer. No Federal Claims Pleaded 46. claims in this action are brought solely under state law. Carmen does not herein bring, assert, or allege, either expressly or impliedly, any causes of action arising under any federal law, statute, regulation, or provision. Thus, there is no federal jurisdiction in this action on the basis of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. ?133 1. Complaint - 20 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. trim 313 13'- 11-2: 00 {Hi i, {t 47. Furthermore, federal diversity jurisdiction is lacking in this action. Complete diversity does not exist between the parties and, therefore, the federal courts lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ?1332. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE including ?Gross Negligence? [California Civil Code ?1714(a); City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (Janeway) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747; California Civil Code ?1668] (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS and DOES 6 through 9, inclusive) 48. On or about July 11, 2014, the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 inclusive, and each of them, so negligently owned, leased, maintained, controlled, managed, operated, repaired, designed and constructed the HEALTH STUDIO and so negligently controlled, managed, operated and instructed the SPINNING CLASS, so as to allow each, and all, of the following: a. permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being properly instructed on the use of the SPINNING b. permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being properly instructed on the relationship between the ?ywheel and the pedals of the SPINNING c. permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being pr0perly instructed as to the location and/or use of the two (2) knobs for the adjustment of the saddle of the SPINNING Complaint - 21 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being properly instructed on the proper use of the dumbbells located on each side of the saddle of the SPINNING . permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being prOperly instructed as to the location and/or use of the knob for the adjustment of the handlebars of the SPINNING permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being properly instructed as to the location and/or use of the knob for slowing the momentum of the ?ywheel of the SPINNING . permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being properly warned not to lean forward on the handlebars of the SPINNING CYCLE, when the ?ywheel was rotating; . permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being properly warned not to get out of the saddle of the SPINNING CYCLE, when the ?ywheel was rotating; permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without CARMEN being properly instructed on the purpose and/or proper use of the cleated black shoes needed for the SPINNING permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNING CLASS without ?rst determining level of her physical conditioning; Complaint - 22 Carmen arias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. ?if? ml?: 27. 1.4.3 253., up to k. permit CARMEN to ride a SPINNING CYCLE during the SPINNIN CLASS without CARMEN being properly instructed on what action should be taken by CARMEN if she (CARMEN) became fatigued; 1. cause the volume of the music within the WORKOUT ROOM to be raised to such a level that CARMEN was unable to communicate with other riders and/or DOE 6 and/or ANGELA m. cause the volume of the music within the WORKOUT ROOM to be raised to such a level that CARMEN became disoriented; 11. cause the light level within the WORKOUT ROOM to be reduced so low that CARMEN was unable to communicate with other riders and/or DOE 6 and/or ANGELA 0. cause the light level within the WORKOUT ROOM to be reduced so low that the others riders, DOE 6 and/or ANGELA DAVIS were unable to see and, p. cause the light level within the WORKOUT ROOM to be reduced so low that CARMEN became disoriented. 49. The DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 inclusive, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the aforementioned acts, and failures to act, constituted a dangerous condition and unreasonable risk of harm to which persons, such as CARMEN, would be unaware. The DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 inclusive, and each of them, negligently failed to take steps to either make the aforementioned condition safe or warn persons, such as CARMEN, of the dangerous condition, all of which was a direct, proximate and foreseeable Complaint - 23 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. 1 cause of CARMEN falling from the SPINNING CYCLE and, thereby, causing CARMEN to suffer the injuries and damages as herein described. 50. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the negligence, including gross negligence, of the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 6 inclusive, and each of them, CARMEN was hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CARMEN great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. CARMEN 10 is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent 11 disability to her. As a result of such injuries, CARMEN has suffered general damages in an 12 amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the 13 Superior Court. 14 51. As a further direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the negligence, including 15 16 gross negligence, of the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 17 inclusive, and each of them, CARMEN has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and 13 related expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the '19 jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. 20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 21 22 NEGLIGENCE: Failure to Follow Own Policies and Procedures 23 [California Civil Code ?1714(a)] 24 (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS 25 . and DOES 6 through 9, inclusive) 26 27.. 25:? 22?? Complaint - 24 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. ?fth?: 52. CARMEN refers to, repeats and re alleges each of the allegations in paragraphs 48 through 51 of this Complaint and incorporates said allegations into this cause of action as though fully herein set forth. 53. On or about July 11, 2014, the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 inclusive, and each of them, failed to follow the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. This failure included, but was not limited to, a failure to instruct NEW RIDERS, including CARMEN, as to the safe Operation and use of a SPINNING CYCLE. In particular, the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 inclusive, and each of them, failed to: a. provide CARMEN with a 15 (?fteen) minute introduction to spinning and the SPINNING including instruction on the relationship between the ?ywheel and the pedals of the SPINNING b. instruct CARMEN on the location and use of the two (2) knobs for the adjustment of the saddle of the SPINNING c. instruct CARMEN on the location and use of the knob for the adjustment of the handlebars of the SPINNING d. instruct CARMEN on the location and use of the knob for slowing the momentum of the ?ywheel of the SPINNING e. warn CARMEN not to lean forward on the handlebars of the SPINNING CYCLE, when the ?ywheel was rotating; f. warn CARMEN not to get out of the saddle of the SPINNING CYCLE, when the ?ywheel was rotating; Complaint - 25 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. instruct CARMEN on the purpose and proper use of the special cleated shoes needed for the SPINNING h. inquire of CARMEN as to her overall fitness level; and, i. instruct CARMEN on what action should be taken if she became fatigued. 54. The DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 inclusive, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the aforementioned failure to follow the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES created an unreasonable risk of harm to which persons, such as CARMEN, would be unaware. The DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS, DOES 6 through 9 inclusive, and each of them, negligently failed to take steps to either follow the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES or to warn persons, such as CARMEN, of their failure to follow the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, all of which was a direct, proximate and foreseeable cause of CARMEN falling from the SPINNING CYCLE and, thereby, causing CARMEN to suffer the injuries and damages as herein described. 55. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS and DOES 6 through 9?s failure to follow the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, CARMEN was hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CARMEN great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. CARMEN is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her. As a result of such injuries, CARMEN has suffered general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Complaint - 26 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. 1,131.9" i 56. As a further direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the DEFENDANTS, ANGELA DAVIS and DOES 6 through 9?s failure to follow the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, CARMEN has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE: IN THE COMPENSATION, SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES [Civil Code ?l7l4(a)] (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS) 57. CARMEN refers to, repeats and re alleges each of the allegations in paragraphs 48 through 56 of this Complaint and incorporates said allegations into this cause of action as though fully herein set forth. 58. CARMEN is informed and believes, and based upon this information and belief alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had a practice of requiring their cycle instructors, like ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6, to perform the aforementioned ?non-compensated tasks,? while their cycle instructors were in the course and scope of their employment at the HEALTH STUDIO. In fact, and LLC have been the target of a class action lawsuit for wage and hour violations as it pertains to these ?non-compensated tasks.? 59. As a result of this practice of the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, of having their cycle instructors perform ?non-compensated tasks,? the Complaint - 27 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. meat-50? cycle instructors, like ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6, would habitually fail to instruct NEW RIDERS regarding the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. That is, the cycle instructors, like ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6, failed to perform work for which they were not being paid. 60. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS and/or their managerial employees and/or agents and/or hourly employees knew, or reasonably should have known, that employees of the DEFENDANTS, including, but not limited to, ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6, and each of them, failed to instruct customers and buyers, and particularly NEW RIDERS, regarding the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 61. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS knew, or reasonably should have known, that their employees, including, but not limited to, ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6, and each of them, had a history of failing to properly instruct NEW RIDERS, like CARMEN, regarding the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Further, that the failure of their employees, including, but not limited to, ANGELA DAVIS and DOES 6, and each them, to properly instruct NEW RIDERS regarding the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, would result in serious physical injury and emotional distress to NEW RIDERS, like CARMEN. 62. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS, including their employees and agents knew, or reasonably should have known, that unless they intervened to warn NEW RIDERS, like CARMEN, and to adequately supervise, control, regulate and train ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6, and each of them, the remaining employees and agents of the DEFENDANTS would perceive such failure to instruct as being rati?ed and condoned by the DEFENDANTS. As such, the employees and agents of the Complaint - 28 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et DEFENDANTS would also fail to instruct NEW RIDERS, like CARMEN, and would fail to take any af?rmative action to insure that NEW RIDERS, like CARMEN, would be instructed regarding the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 63. ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6?s failure to properly instruct NEW RIDERS, like CARMEN, regarding the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES was foreseeable, since: ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6 were not being compensated (paid) for this work by the and, the employees and agents of the DEF ENDANTS failed to take any action to insure that ANGELA DAVIS and DOE 6, and each of them, were instructing NEW RIDERS. 64. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the failure to compensate, supervise, control, regulate and train ANGELA DAVIS, DOE 6, their employees and agents, and each of them, CARMEN was hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CARMEN great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. CARMEN is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her. As a result of such injuries, CARMEN has suffered general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. 65. As a further direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the failure to compensate, supervise, control, regulate and train ANGELA DAVIS, DOE 6, their employees and agents, and each of them, CARMEN has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Complaint - 29 Carmen Farias v. Sculecle Inc., etc, et al. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE ?1812.82 (Failure to Provide Copy of Written Contract) [Civil Code ??1812.80, et seq.] (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS, and each of them) 66. CARMEN refers to, repeats and re alleges each of the allegations in paragraphs 48 through 65 of this Complaint and incorporates said allegations into this cause of action as though fully herein set forth. 67. Pursuant to California Civil Code ?1812.82, the DEFENDANTS had the legal obligation to provide CARMEN with a copy of the WAIVER copy of the written contract shall be given to the customer at the time he signs the contract?) By failing to give CARMEN a copy of the WAIVER, the DEFENDANTS failed to meet the requirements of ?1812.82. 68. Pursuant to California Civil Code ?1812.91, ?Any contract for health studio services which does not comply with the applicable provisions of this title shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.? As a copy of the WAIVER was not given to CARMEN, the WAIVER, therefore, is void and unenforceable as against CARMEN. 69. Pursuant to California Civil Code ?Any buyer injured by a violation of this title may bring an action for the recovery of damages. Judgment may be entered for three times the amount at which the actual damages are assessed plus reasonable attorney fees.? 70. Pursuant to California Civil Code CARMEN seeks damages in the amount of three times her actual damages and her reasonable attorney fees. Complaint - 30 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (Defective Design and/or Manufacture) (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them) 71. CARMEN refers to, repeats and re alleges each of the allegations in paragraphs 48 through 70 of this Complaint and incorporates said allegations into this cause of action as though fully herein set forth. 72. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, inspected, maintained, distributed, marketed, promoted, advertised, provided for use and/or sold the SPINNING CYCLE and its component parts and constituents for and use by members of the general public at health studios. 73. At all times herein mentioned, including July 11, 2014, CARMEN used the SPINNING CYCLE in a foreseeable manner. 74. The DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, knew that members of the general public would use the SPINNING CYCLE without being able to inspect it or become aware of its defective nature. Prior to July 11, 2014, CARMEN had no reason to suspect or know that the SPINNING CYCLE was defective and unsafe for use. 75. The SPINNING CYCLE was defective at the time of manufacture, design, production, distribution, testing, inspection, sale, endorsement, promotion, providing for use and/or advertisement. The SPINNING CYCLE was defective and unsafe for its intended use. Complaint - 31 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. ?533' 28., :13) 76. Prior to the use of the SPINNING CYCLE by CARMEN on July 11, 2014, DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, knew that the SPINNING CYCLE was in a defective and dangerous condition and that because of the defects, the SPINNING CYCLE could not be used safely for the purposes for which it was intended. More speci?cally, DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, had notice of other similar injuries to similar persons under similar circumstances. The DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, had received complaints and claims for such injuries prior to those of CARMEN. The DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, also knew that continued use of the SPINNING CYCLE would result in further injuries to persons such as CARMEN. 77. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the defective and dangerous condition of the SPINNING CYCLE, CARMEN was hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CARMEN great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. CARMEN is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her. As a result of such injuries, CARMEN has suffered general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. 78. As a further direct, proximate and foreseeable result of defective and dangerous condition of the SPINNING CYCLE, CARMEN has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Complaint - 32 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc, et al. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (Failure to Warn) (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them) 79. CARMEN refers to, repeats and re alleges each of the allegations in paragraphs 48 through 78 of this Complaint and incorporates said allegations into this cause of action as though fully herein set forth. 80. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, promoted, advertised, sold, supplied, tested, provided for use and/or inspected the SPINNING CYCLE described herein above, for the purpose of placing them in the stream of commerce. 81. The SPINNING CYCLE manufactured, distributed, marketed, promoted, advertised, sold and/or inspected by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, was unaccompanied by adequate warnings regarding the location and proper use of the knob for slowing the rotation of the ?ywheel of the SPINNING CYCLE. The warnings given did not accurately re?ect the risk of injury and other risks so associated with the SPINNING CYCLE. 82. The SPINNING CYCLE was defective due to inadequate post-marketing warning or instruction because, after the manufacturers knew or should have known of the risk of injury to users of the SPINNING CYCLE, the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, failed to provide adequate warnings to users and persons subjected to the SPINNING CYCLE and continued to manufacture, assemble, distribute, promote, and use the SPINNING CYCLE. Complaint - 33 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30?s failure to warn, CARMEN was hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CARMEN great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. CARMEN is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her. As a result of such injuries, CARMEN has suffered general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. 84. As a further direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30?s failure to warn, CARMEN has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTIES (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them) 85. CARMEN refers to, repeats and re alleges each of the allegations in paragraphs 48 through 84 of this Complaint and incorporates said allegations into this cause of action as though fully herein set forth. 86. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, expressly warranted to and the general public, that the SPINNING CYCLE was safe, effective, ?t and proper for its intended use. Complaint - 34 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. 2?33 2.8? 87. CARMEN, in using the SPINNING CYCLE, relied on the skill, judgment, representations and foregoing express warranties of the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them. Said warranties and representatives were false in that the SPINNING CYCLE was not safe and was un?t for the uses for which it was intended. . 88. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the false representations and warranties of the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, CARMEN was hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CARMEN great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. CARMEN is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her. As a result of such injuries, CARMEN has suffered general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. 89. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the false representations and warranties of the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, CARMEN has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them) 90. CARMEN refers to, repeats and re alleges each of the allegations in paragraphs 49 through 89 of this Complaint and incorporates said allegations into this cause of action as Complaint 35 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et ertt; N313 0? though fully herein set forth. 91. Prior to the time that the SPINNING CYCLE was used by CARMEN, the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, implied warranties to and the general public that the SPINNING CYCLE was of merchantable quality and safe and ?t for the use for which it was intended. 92. CARMEN is unskilled in the research, design and manufacture of the SPINNING CYCLE and reasonably relied entirely on the skill, judgment and implied warranty of the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, in using the SPINNING CYCLE. 93. The SPINNING CYCLE was neither safe for its intended use nor of merchantable quality, as warranted by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, in that it had dangerous propensities when put to its intended use and would cause severe injuries to the user. 94. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the SPINNING CYCLE being neither safe for its intended use nor of merchantable quality, as warranted by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, CARMEN was hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CARMEN great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. CARMEN is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her. As a result of such injuries, CARMEN has suffered general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. 95. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the SPINNING CYCLE being neither safe for its intended use nor of merchantable quality, as warranted by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, CARMEN has Complaint - 36 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc, et al. :35: 2?7: 2?8 ?t?gs incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (CARMEN against the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them) 96. CARMEN refers to, repeats and re alleges each of the allegations in paragraphs 48 through 95 of this Complaint and incorporates said allegations into this cause of action as though fully herein set forth. 97. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, were engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing, assembling, compounding, testing, inspecting, packaging, labeling, fabricating, constructing, analyzing, distributing, servicing, merchandising, recommending, advertising, promoting, marketing, providing for use and selling the SPINNING CYCLE and its component parts and constituents, for use by members of the general public. 98. At all times herein mentioned, the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, that the SPINING CYCLE was a product of such a nature that if it was not properly manufactured, designed, assembled, compounded, tested, inspected, fabricated, constructed, analyzed, distributed, serviced, merchandized, recommended, advertised, promoted, marketed, provided for use and sold, for the use and purpose for which it was intended, it was likely to injure the person or persons by whom it was used. 99. The DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly manufactured, designed, assembled, compounded, tested or failed to test, inspected or failed to inspect, fabricated, constructed, analyzed, distributed, serviced, merchandized, recommended, advertised, promoted, marketed, provided for use Complaint - 37 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. and sold the SPINNING CYCLE and its component parts such that it was in a dangerous and defective condition, and unsafe for the use and purpose for which it was intended when used as recommended by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them. 100. The defective and dangerous character and condition of the SPINNING CYCLE, and the fact that it was unsafe for the use and purpose for which it was intended when used as recommended by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, was known to the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have been known and discovered by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them. The dangerous and defective character and condition of the SPINNING CYCLE was not made known to CARMEN by the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, or any of them. 101. On or about July 11, 2014, CARMEN used, was subjected to and relied on the SPINNING CYCLE for the purpose for which it was intended. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the negligence and carelessness of the DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, the SPINNING CYCLE caused injuries to CARMEN. 102. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the negligence and carelessness of DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, CARMEN was hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity sustaining injury to her nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, CARMEN great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. CARMEN is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her. As a result of such injuries, CARMEN has suffered general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Complaint - 38 Carmen arias v. Sculecle Inc., etc, et al. i??5t?rs? ?3 103. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the negligence and carelessness 0f DEFENDANTS and DOES 10 through 30, and each of them, CARMEN has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY CARMEN hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims for relief as herein alleged and on all issues raised by this Complaint. PRAYER WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, CARMEN FARIAS, prays judgment against defendants, INC., a Delaware corporation, BEVERLY HILLS, LLC, a California limited liability company, ANGELA DAVIS, an individual and resident of the State of California, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, as follows. First Cause of Action 1. For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 2. For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; 3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and, 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Second Cause of Action I 1. For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 2. For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; 3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and, 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Complaint - 39 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc, etc., et al. Third Cause of Action . For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; . For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; . For costs of suit herein incurred; and, . For such other and further relief as the court deems just and preper. Fourth Cause of Action . For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; . For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; . For three times actual damages pursuant to California Civil Code . For reasonable attorney fees pursuant to California Civil Code . For costs of suit herein incurred; and, . For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Fifth Cause of Action . For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; . For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; . For costs of suit herein incurred; and, . For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Sixth Cause of Action . For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; . For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; . For costs of suit herein incurred; and, Complaint - 40 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et al. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Seventh Cause of Action . For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 2. For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; 3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and, 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper Eighth Cause of Action 1. For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 2. For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; 3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and, 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Ninth Cause of Action 1. For general damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 2. For medical and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial; 3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and, 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: May?! 2016 Of?ces of Joseph M. Ferrante and 0 ice of Law Attorneys for Plaintiff, Carmen Farias Complaint - 41 Carmen Farias v. Soulecle Inc., etc., et a1. CM-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. gr number, and address): . FOR COURT USE ONLY _Joseph Ferrante EsqLaw Office of Joseph M. Ferrante . O. Box 2 4 50 Su rior Court of California Monrov1a CA 9 0 1 7 ountv of Los Anoeles TELEPHONENO.: 626-359-1414 FAXNO.: 626-359-1717 31 Carmen Farias SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF Lo 5 Ange 1 es Sh em R, Ca ive OtticerIClerk STREET ADDRESS: 1 1 1 North Hi 1 1 St . By Deputy MAILINGADDRESS: 111 North Hill St. aunya Gide" Angeles, CA 90012 Mosk Courthouse CASE NAME: FARIAS, ETC. V. INC. ETC. ET AL . CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER 1 Unlimited Limited a Counter I: Joinder 6 24 0 5 9 ggwg?gted is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant JUDGE: exceeds $251000) $25,000 or Iess) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal- Rules of Court. rules 3-400-3-403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) 1:1 Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Injuryi'Property Other collections (09) Construction defect (10) Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) M355 tort (40) (04) Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) liability (24) Real Property (3 Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/Inverse Insurance coverage Claims arising from the Other pl/pD/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) i Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Cl Other real property (26) Enforcement ofJudgment Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement ijudgment (20) Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint :1 Fraud (16) Residential (32) [j Rico (27) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) 1 Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tort (35) Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) I:l Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules Of Court. lfthe case is complex. mark the factoLs requiring exceptional judicial management: a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult 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 postjudgmentjudicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. monetary b. Cl nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. punitive Numberofcausesofaction (specify): Nine (9) This case is I is not a class action suit. 6. if there are any known related cases. ?le and serve a notice of related case. (Y Date: 05/31/2016 Joseph Ferrante, Esq. 8.8. No. 86265 E, (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) (SWONATURE or PARTY 0R ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) j? NOTICE 0 Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in the action or- ceeding (except small claims cases or cases ?led under the Probate Code. Family Code. or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.220.) Failure to ?le may result in~sanctions. Elie this cover Sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 liflthis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. ofthe California Rules of Court. you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case. this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. Page 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30. 3.220, 3.400?3.403. 3.740; Sotizf1 ns- 9?95? Judicial Council Of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration. std. 3.10 CM-010 (Rev. July 1. 2007] us ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE cc. SHEET Gill-010 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are ?ling a ?rst paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and ?le, along with your ?rst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases ?led. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. in item 1, you must?heck one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case ?ts both a general and a more speci?c type of case listed in item 1, check the more speci?c one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. Algover sheet must be ?led only with your initial paper. Failure to ?le a cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is de?ned as an action for recovery of moneyjpwed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney?s fees, arising from a transaction in which property. services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages. (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identi?cation of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant ?les a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. in complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. if a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may ?le and serve no later than the time of its ?rst appearance a joinder in the plaintiff?s designation. a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)?Personal injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other (Personal lnjuryl Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injuryl Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice- Physicians Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other PIIPDIWD (23) Premises Liability slip and fall) intentional Bodily assault, vandalism) intentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress Negligent lnfliction of Emotional Distress Other (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful deiainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach?Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract! Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case?Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ?Administrative Mandamus Writ?Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ?Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal?Labor Commissioner Appeals Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only lnjunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief from Late Claim Other Civil Petition July 1, 2007] CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page 2 of 2 . . I FARIAS v. INC. ETC., ET AL. A CASENUMBER 5" 6 22 0 5 9 SHORT TITLE: CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Step 1: After completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet (Judicial Council form find the exact case type in Column A that corresponds to the case type indicated in the Civil Case Cover Sheet. Step 2: In Column B, check the box for the type of action that best describes the nature of the case. Step 3: In Column C, circle the number which explains the reason for the court filing location you have chosen. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Court Filing Location (Column C) 11. Mandatory filing location (Hub Cases unlawful detainer, limited . 'whererfm . .. Locatlon pe or ancerequ'redo dee da es es non-collection, limited collection, or personal injury). 1. Class actions must be ?led in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Central District. 7. Location where petitioner resides. 2. Permissive ?ling in central district. 8. Location wherein defendantlrespondent functions wholly. 3. Location where cause of action arose. 9. Location where one or more of the parties reside. 4. Mandatory personal injury ?ling in North District. 10. Location of Labor CommissiOner Of?ce. 5 6 . Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle. . A Civil Case Cover Sheet A Type of Action Applicable Reasons - Category No. . (Check only one) See Step 3 Above Auto (22) A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) El A7110 Personal Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death Uninsured Motorist 1, 4, 11 Cl A6070 Asbestos Property Damage 1, 11 Asbestos (04) A7221 Asbestos- Personal Death 1. 11 a) a Product Liability (24) El A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) 1. 4. 11 a. l] A7210 Medical Malpractice - Physicians Surgeons 1: 4- 11 '3 .2 Medical Malpractice (45) 1 4 11 A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice - a 76 El A7250 Premises Liability (e.g..slip and fall) 1 4? a. at Other Personal . . . a Injury Property Cl A7230 Intentional Bodily Damage/Wrongful Death 1 4 11 ?on Damage Wrongful assault. vandalism, etc.) 1-231 Death (23) Cl A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 1' 4' 11 w. El A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death 1'4'11 :13) LACIV109 (Rev 2/16) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of 4 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER FARIAS V. INC. ETCApplicable Civil Case Cover Sheet 1 Type of Action'. Reasons - See Step 3 Category No. (Check only one) Above Business T0rt(07) El A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract) 1.2.3 1: ES Civil Rights (08) A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination 1.2.3 6? :5 (B 3 Defamation (13) A6010 Defamation (slander/libel) 1.2.3 is .E Fraud (16) A6013 Fraud (nocontract) 1.2.3 3.5 A6017 Legal Malpractice 1.2.3 a: a, Professional Negligence (25) El A6050 OtherProfessional Malpractice (not medical or legal) 1.2.3 5 a c: Other (35) El A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/PropertyDamage tort 1.2.3 Wrongful Termination (36) A6037 Wrongful Termination 1.2.3 El A6024 OtherEmploymentComplaint Case 1.2.3 3. Other Employment (15) . El A6109 LaborCommissionerAppeaIs 10 El A6004 Breach of RentalfLease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful 2 5 eviction) Breach of Contract! Warran (05) A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) 2? 5 (?0t insurance) El A6019 Negligent Breach of Contract/Warranty(no fraud) 1? 2' 5 A6028 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) 1? 2? 5 ?g a A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 5.6.11 Collections (09) El A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case 5.11 0 El A6034 Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt 5. 6, 11 Purchased on or after January 1. 2014) Insurance Coverage (18) El A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1.2.5.8 A6009 Contractual Fraud 1.2.3.5 OtherContract (37) A6031 Tortious Interference 1.2.3.5 El A6027 Other Contract Dispule(not 1. 2. 3. B. 9 Eminent Domain/Inverse . . . Condemnatiomm) A7300 EminentDomain/Condemnation Number ofparcels 2.6 . . . . a Wrongful EVIctlon (33) El A6023 Wrongful Ewctlon Case 2.6 a El A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 2.6 '1 Other Real Property (26) Cl A6032 Quiet Title 2. 6 A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain. landlord/tenant. foreclosure) 2. 6 unlawfwDetig?r'commerc'a? El A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commerciai (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 6.11 0 3.53% Unlanul A6020 Unlawful Delainer-Residential (notdrugs or wrongful eviction) 6.11 3 Unlawful Detainer- . ?w - - I:le Post_Foreclosure (34) El A6020F Unlawful Detainer Post Foreclosure 2.6.11 :35 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38) El A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs 2. 6. 11 ?1.11, CACIV 109 (Rev 2/16) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of4 d3- SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER FARIAS V. INC. ETC., ET AL. I A 2 Applicable Civil Case CoVer Sheet Type of Action . Reasons - See Step 3 CategoryNo. (Check onlyone) Above Asset Forfeiture (05) A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case 2, 3.6 a Petition re Arbitration (11) E1 A6115 Petition to CompeI/Con?rmNacate Arbitration 2. 5 OJ '3 A6151 Writ-Administrative Mandamus 2. 8 Writ of Mandate (02) A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2 A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review 2 OtherJudicialReview(39) A6150 OtherWrit [Judicial Review 2.8 Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03] A6003 AntitrusUTrade Regulation 1.2.8 '3 Construction Defect(10) l:l A6007 Construction Defect 1.2.3 Clams Invog'on? Mass To? A6006 Mass Tort 1. 2. 8 a. 8 Securities Litigation (28) A6035 Securities Litigation Case 1.2.8 7? Toxic Tort . a Environmental (30) A6036 TOXIC Tort/EnVIronmental 1.2. 3.8 '5 2 Insurance Coverage Claims . from Complex Case (41) A6014 Insurance CoveragelSubrogatlon (complex case only) 1. 2. 5. 8 El A6141 Sister State Judgment 2.5.11 El A6160 Abstractof Judgment 2.6 1: Enforcement El A6107 Confession ofJudgment (non-domestic relations) 2. 9 El A6140 AdministrativeAgencyAward (not unpaid taxesA6114 Unpaid Tax 2.8 A6112 OtherEnforcementofJudgmentCase 2.8.9 RICO (27) A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case 1.2.8 2 *3 8 CI A6030 Declaratory Relief Only 1,2.8 5 Other Complaints 13 A6040 Injunctive ReliefOnly (not domestidharassment) 2.8 (NOI Spec'?ed Above) (42) A6011 OtherCommerciai Complaint Case (non-torUnon-complex) 1, 2. 8 5 Cl A6000 Other Civil Complaint(non-tomnon-complex) 1.2.8 Partnership Corporation . Governance (21) El A6113 Partnership and CorporateGovemance Case 2.8 A6121 Civil Harassment 2. 3. 9 13 A6123 Workplace Harassment 2.3.9 0 5-3 I: A6124 Eld ID de tA itA g: Otherpemions (Not er epen du buse ase 2.3.9 8 Speci?edAbove) (43) El A6190 Election Contest 2 .E .2 its 0 El A6110 Petition for Change ofName/Change of Gender 2 7 vii-1 A6170 Petition for Relieffrom Late Claim Law 2 3 8 213?. El A6100 Other Civil Petition 2 9 ~13 LACIV 109 (Rev 2l16) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 of 4 I CASE NUMBER SHORT TITLE: FARIAS V. INC. ETC., ET AL. Step 4: Statement of Reason and Address: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown under Column Cforthe type of action that you have selected. Enter the address which is the basis for the filing location, including zip code. (No address required for class action cases). ADDRESS: REASON: 9465 VWshire Boulevard [38.0 9.D10.I7JI1. CITY: Beverly Hills STATE: CA ZIP cone: 90212 Step 5: Certification of Assignment: Icertifythatthis case is properly filed inthe Central JUdlCiaI District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., ?392 et seq., and Local Rule Dated: 05/31/2016 (ydE OF PARTY) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition. 2 if filing a Complaint, 3 completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010. 4 Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 02/16). 5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless there is court order for waiver. partial or scheduled payments. 6. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form 0, if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case. LACIV 109 (Rev 2/16) LASC Approved 03-04 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4