SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Nov-18?2016 12:15 pm Case Number: CGC-16-555444 Filing Date: Nov?18?2016 12:11 Filed by: BOWMAN LIU Image: 05639208 COMPLAINT DOMAINSCABLE INC. ET AL VS. FARADAY FUTURE INC. ET AL 001005639208 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. sum-roe SUMMONS Foacouaruseowu (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: l(Ear/roe AL osmuonoor: ARADAY FUTURE INC. d/b/a FARADAY FUTURE a California co oration; and DOES THRO GH 100. YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: go ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): . OMAINSCABLE a Delaware corporation, and SURAJ RAJWANI, an individual NOTICEI You have been sued. The court my 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 Onllna Self-Help Center 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 attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney. you may want to call an atlomoy referral service. It 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 Calliomla Legal Services Web site (wwaawhel?pcetlfomlaory). the California Courts Onlino Self?Help Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived teas and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more In a civil case. The court?s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo iron demandado. Si no responds denim do 30 dies. to eerie puede door?dir en su contra sin oscuchar su version. Lee to inforrnacion a oonfinuacldn. Tlarra 30 0013 DE daspu?s do que la aniraguen esta citacion papolos tagales para presenter una raspuosfa par oscrr?to en esta code tracer qua so antregua una copla at demandanto. Una carts a una tiarnoda no to profagen. Su rospuesta per oscn?to tieno qua aster on tomato legal comedic at doses qua procasen su case an to corte. Es posibta qua hays on tonnutario que ustad puede usarpara su respuesle. Puode arroarrtrar astos fannutarlos do to code mos lntonnacidn on at Centre do Ayude do too Cortes do Catliomla en la bibllateca doteyes desucondado quote quedemdsoorca. Sincpuodepagarla cuota doprosentacidn. pldealsecretan?o data corte que to do an iommterlo do axanolon do page do ouolas. Si no presents su respueste a tlompo. puede perdar at ease por la corte ta padre quttarsu suetdo. dinero yblenes sin mas adverfencla. . Hay otros requisites legatos. Es rocornendabto qua Items 8 un abogado inmediatamonte. Si no canoes a un abogedo. puede tiamora un seM'ofo do remisldn a abogarbs. Si no puedo pager a un abogado, as postbta qua cumpla con los requisites para obtener legatas grafur'tos do on programs do servicios logatos sin fines de tucro. Puodo encontrar ostos grupos sin fines do luoro an at ailio web do California Legal Services. on at Centre do Ayuda do too Cortes do ponlondose en contacto con to corta of cotagio do abogados locales. For toy. to corra tiana doreclro a reclamartas cuotas tos cosfos exentos per inponer un gravarnon sabre coalqulerrecupomoion do $10,000 6 nuts do valor rociblda modlante un acuardo a una concasion do arbiu'aje an un case do dorocho civil. Tiana qua Egar at gray-man do to corie antes do que to code puede dasochar of case. The name and address of the court is: CASE if: 2. ,2 - i; Elnornbro (?reoclon dotacortanes): . '4 error State of Cahforma 40 Street San Fransisco, CA 94105 The name. ddress. and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney. or plaintiff without an attorney. is: (El nombre. ta direcoldn at ntimaro do tol?lono dot abogado do! demandanre. a dot demandanto que no tteno abogado. es): e?r?iDz O'Connor and Associates 201 Sign Street Sluts 710 (415) 693-9960 San Cahforma 94105 DEPUTY CLERK NOV 1 8 2016 orproo a so co a summons. use too 0 ervrce ummons rm i .: gist? 3. (Para pruaba do antraga do esta citacton use of formularto Proof of Sonrico of Summons. 'f is [85m NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. as an individual defendant. 2. as the parson'suad under the fictitious name of (specify): .5 3. on behalf of fspoci?t): under: COP 416.10 (corporation) cop 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatae) i CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) COP 416.90 (authorized person) other (special): 4. by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 of 1 summons OodeofClvii macaw. 405 - ?mm?mm? ?a O?Connor I?lt?l John D. O'Connor SBN 54238) Je??rey D. Kirk (SB 1 13163 Jessica C. Shafer SBN 2978 6 curt of Calitom Si San Francasc 201 Mission Street, Suite 710 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 693-9960 Facsunile: (415) 692-6537 Altorne for Plaintiffs DOM SCABLE INC, SURAJ KUMAR RAJWANI AN ASSOCIA ES Nov. 13 2016 3:33;. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ?a 7 g; a 3 DOMAINSCABLE INC., 3 Delaware 1.51:1 i5 5 A: corporation, and SURAJ RAJWANI, an individual, Case No.: Plaint'ff5= COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT, QUANTUM MERUIT, AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT VS. FARADAY FUTURE d/b/a FARADAY FUTURE, a California corporation; and DOES THROUGH 100, Defendants. Domaimcable v. Faraday Complaint 1 By Fax Plaintiff DomainsCable, Inc. (?DomainsCable? or ?Plainti??) and Suraj Rajwani (?Rajwani" or ?Plaintiff?) (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?), respectfully submit this Complaint (the ?Complaint?) against Defendants Faraday??cFuture lnc., d/b/a Faraday Future (?FaradayFuture? or ?Defendant?) and Does 1 through 100 (?Defendant?) (collectively, ?Defendants?), and for its causes of action alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This action arises out of the breach of an oral and/or implied contract by Faraday Future regarding the payment of a commission to DomainsCable and/or Mr. Rajwani respecting the purchase by Faraday Future of the domain name f?com from Bank of America. 2. In early 2015, Mr. Marcus Nelson, then Head of Corporate Communications for Faraday Future, retained Suraj Rajwani of DomainsCable to assist with the location and purchase of a suitable domain name for Faraday Future. 3. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Rajwani had a long professional relationship that extended over a period of several years, and Mr. Nelson was aware that Mr. Rajwani and DomainsCable were engaged in the business of brokering and selling domain names for a fee. The parties entered into an oral and/or implied agreement requiring Mr. Rajwani to locate and negotiate for the purchase of a domain name for Faraday Future in exchange for the payment of a standard commission upon the closing of any transaction by Faraday Future. 4. After receiving speci?c written instructions from Mr. Nelson regarding Faraday Future?s requirements in a domain name, Mr. Rajwani suggested and presented Faraday Future with the possibility of purchasing ff.com ?om its then owner, Bank of America. Mr. Raj wani had identi?ed Bank of America as the owner of ?icom through his expertise as a domain name broker, and, on information and belief, the identity of the owner was not known to Mr. Nelson. 5. Mr. Nelson, after reportedly discussing the matter with his superiors at Faraday Future, authorized Mr. Rajwani to commence negotiations with Bank of America for the purchase of the ?icom domain name, and speci?cally authorized Mr. Rajwani to make an offer of $400,000 to Bank of America for the purchase of the domain name. Domainscable v. Faraday Complaint 2 6. Mr. Rajwani thereafter entered into negotiations with Bank of America on behalf of Faraday Future, and the parties exchanged offers and counteroffers regarding the sale price of the ?lcom domain name. In the midst of these negotiations, and after Mr. Rajwani had spent months working on ?nalizing a deal, Mr. Nelson suddenly announced that he had gone around Mr. Raj wani to cut a deal directly with Bank of America for the purchase of the domain name in the amount of $1,400,000. Mr. Nelson further noti?ed Mr. Rajwani that Faraday Future would not pay the commission it owed regarding the transaction. 7. Mr. Nelson shamelessly appears to brag about his going around Mr. Rajwani to try and avoid paying the commission due on the sale of the ff.com domain, openly boasting on his LinkedIn pro?le that his time as head of Corporate Communication for Faraday Future included ?negotiation and acquisition of a new domain purchase (TBA) saving $400,000.? (emphasis added.) Faraday Future?s refusal to date to pay any or all of the commission owed to has forced Mr. Rajwani and DomainsCable to ?le this action and seek relief in this forum. THE PARTIES 8. Plaintiff DomainsCable is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Califomia. Plaintiff Suraj Rajwani is a resident of the State of California. 9. Defendant Faraday Future is a California Corporation with its principle place of business located at 18455 S. Figueroa Street, Gardena, California. 10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and identities of Does 1 through 100 and consequently sues these individuals under ?ctitious names. Each of the Doc defendants is materially responsible for the unlawful conduct, actions and subsequent damages described in this Complaint. Plaintiffs will amend this pleading to add the names of these Doe defendants once they are ascertained through discovery or otherwise. 1 l. The contracts alleged were made in part in the City and County of San Francisco and were to be performed there. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. DomainsCable, primarily through its principal Suraj Rajwani, is engaged in the Damainscable v. Faraday Complaint 3 0 0 business, among other things, of locating and assisting with the negotiations and purchase or sale of high end domain names in exchange for a fee. DomainsCable generally charges a fee equivalent to 15% of the purchase price, due and payable immediately upon the sale of the domain name. 13. Beginning in early 2015, Mr. Marcus Nelson, then Head of Corporate Communications for Faraday Future, began working with Suraj Rajwani regarding the purchase of a suitable domain name for Faraday Future. The two men had a long professional history and Mr. Nelson was aware that Mr. Rajwani was engaged in the brokering of domain name sales for a fee. This relationship extended over a period of several years when Mr. Nelson was employed at Salesforce, Inc., and Mr. Rajwani brokered deals involving his division and others at the company. 14. The parties entered into an oral agreement requiring Mr. Rajwani to locate and negotiate for the purchase of a domain name for Faraday Future in exchange for the payment of a standard commission to DomainsCable. and, on information and belief. Mr. Nelson was at all times aware that Mr. Rajwani expected to be paid for his services. 15. Based on his title as Head of Corporate Communications, Mr. Rajwani reasonably believed that Mr. Nelson had full authority to retain his services on behalf of Faraday Future. 16. In a text message dated April 3, 2015, Mr. Nelson informed Mr. Rajwani that Faraday Future was then in ?stealth mode,? that it had a working title of FF, and that one of Mr. Nelson?s ?rst tasks was to name the company. 17. In a follow up text message on April 6, 2015, Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Rajwani about domain names that would make a great car company name. In that regard, Mr. Nelson suggested the name ?Nova? as a potential option. Mr. Rajwani responded by asking what Faraday Future?s budget was for the purchase, and also indicated that he would follow up and provide a list of possible domain name options. The parties also discussed the possibility of purchasing other domains, including amber.com, but subsequently decided not to pursue the Nova domain or amber-com DomainscabIe v. Faraday Complaint 4 0 18. Through a series of text messages beginning on April 8, 2015, the parties discussed pricing terms for Mr. Rajwani?s services, with Mr. Nelson stating that because Faraday Future would likely not want to make payment in the form of equity, Mr. Nelson suggested that Mr. Rajwani take ?a fee on top? of the potential purchase. 19. In an email to Mr. Nelson dated April 9, 2015, Mr. Rajwani provided a list of several possible domain names for purchase by Faraday Future. On that same date, Mr. Nelson also gave Mr. Rajwani speci?c written criteria to use in ?nding a suitable domain name for Faraday Future, speci?cally stating in a text message dated April 9, 2015 that: ?Criteria is this: The company name is registerable The trademark is registerable The domain name (companyname.com) is registerable The name should be easy to remember, good for internet marketing, without any negative connotations in English and Chinese? 20. Mr. Nelson also ?mher instructed Mr. Rajwani that Faraday Future ?need[ed] quality domain names that begins with an . . and ?[e]ven better if it has two F?s in it.? Mr. Nelson also instructed Mr. Raj wani don?t care about the price I just need really good quality names.? 21. On May 3, 2015, Mr. Rajwani presented Mr. Nelson with the possibility of acquiring ??icom,? and indicated his belief that the name could be acquired for $1 million dollars. 22. Mr. Nelson appeared interested, and responded by indicating that he would have FF ?5 trademark experts check to see whether the mark could be protected by an entity operating in the automotive space. 23. A?er apparently discussing the matter with his superiors at Faraday Future, Mr. Nelson thereafter speci?call and in writing authorized Mr. Rajwani to make an offer for the purchase of ?lcom on behalf of Faraday Future, informing Mr. Rajwani that: ?Our CEO just gave me permission to offer $400k for FF .com immediately - - think you could make that happen?? Domains-cable v. Faraday Complaint 5 24. Mr. Rajwani subsequently reported back and informed Mr. Nelson that ?icom was owned by Bank of America. This came as somewhat of a surprise to Mr. Nelson, who stated ?Wonder why they had it.? Mr. Rajwani then proceeded to negotiate prices with Bank of America, ?rst offering $150k on behalf of Faraday Future, and receiving a counteroffer of $2.5 million. On information and belief, Mr. Nelson was not aware that Bank of America owned the ?mm domain name. 25. Mr. Rajwani continued these negotiations on behalf of Faraday Future, and brought the cost of the domain name down to $1.5 million dollars. 26. Mr. Rawjani informed Mr. Nelson of the $1.5 million dollar counteroffer from Bank of America through text message on July 17, 2015. 27. In the midst of negotiating for the purchase of ff.com from Bank of America, and a?er Mr. Rajwani had been working on the transaction for months, Mr. Nelson suddenly informed Mr. Rajwani that he had gone around him and was negotiating for the sale of ?Zcom directly. 28. On August 3, 2015, approximately two weeks a?er being informed of the $1.5 million dollar counter-offer from Bank of America, Mr. Nelson informed Mr. Rajwani that Faraday Future had bypassed him and cut a deal directly with Bank of America to purchase ?icom for $1.4 million dollars, and that they were refusing to pay the required commission. 29. According to Mr. Nelson, his ?bosses were getting ?eaked out that things were taking too long" and so he reached out directly to Bank of America. 30. Mr. Rajwani responded that it did not make sense for him to Spend time on procuring an offer if he wasn't going to be paid. Mr. Nelson thereafter shamelessly bragged about his going around Mr. Rajwani to try and avoid paying the commission due on the sale of the f?eom domain, stating on his LinkedIn pro?le that his time as head of Corporate Communication for Faraday Future included ?negotiation and acquisition of a new domain purchase (TBA) saving $400,000.? (Emphasis Damainscable v. Faraday Complaint 6 NN??I?II?At?l?h?v?Ia?nt?a?n 0 0 added). Mr. Rajwani submits, on information and belief, that much of these alleged savings resulted from Mr. Rajwani not being paid his commission on the transaction. 32. To date, Faraday Future has refused to pay Mr. Rajwani the commission that it owes respecting the purchase of the ff.corn domain name. The commission is owed because Mr. Rajwani procured a seller that was ready, willing and able to sell the ?leom domain name and, as a result of Mr. Rajwani?s efforts, Faraday Future was able to subsequently purchase, and did in fact purchase, the f?com domain name for $1,400,000. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Oral Contract (Against Faraday Future) 33. Plaintiffs incorporate every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein. 34. By reason of the forgoing, an oral contract existed between DomainsCable and/or Mr. Rajwani, on the one hand, and Faraday Future, on the other, respecting the brokering of domain name services for a commission to be paid out of the sale price. The standard commission charged by Plaintiffs in such transactions is 15% of the sale price and this was known?to Mr. Nelson. 35. DomainsCable and Mr. Rajwani performed all of their duties under the contract including locating and bringing a buyer to the table that was ready, willing, and able to sell the domain name ?ieom to Faraday Future. To the extent any of Plaintiffs? duties under the contract were not performed, they were legally excused. 36. As a result of Plaintiffs? efforts, Faraday Future did in fact purchase the domain name ?icom from Bank of America, paying a total purchase price of $1,400,000. 37. In refusing to thereafter pay any commission to Plaintiffs, Faraday Future has materially breached a contract with Plainti??s. 38. Faraday Future?s duties under the contract were not excused for any reason. 39. Faraday Future?s breach of the contract has caused and will continue to cause economic injury to Plaintiffs. Domainscable v. Faraday Complaint 7 SECOND OF ACTION Breach of Implied Contract (Against Faraday Future) 40. Plaintiffs incorporate every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth ?illy herein. By reason of the forgoing, and in the event the Court determines that no oral contract existed between Faraday Future and Plaintiffs, the facts recited above establish that an implied contract existed between Plaintiffs and Faraday Future respecting the brokering of domain name services in exchange for payment of a fee to Plainti?'s. 42. Plaintiffs performed all of their duties under the contract, including locating and bringing a buyer to the table that was ready, willing, and able to sell the domain name f?com to Faraday Future. To the extent any of Plaintiffs duties under the contract were not performed, they were legally excused. 43. As a result of Plaintiffs? efforts, Faraday Future did in fact purchase the domain name ?icom from Bank of America, paying a total purchase price of $1,400,000. 44. In refusing to thereafter pay Plaintiffs? commission, Faraday Future has materially breached a contract with Plaintiffs. 4S. Faraday Future?s duties under the contract with Plaintiffs were not excused for any reason. 46. Faraday Future?s breach of the contract has caused and will continue to cause economic injury to Plaintiffs. Quantum Meruit (Against Faraday Future) 47. Plaintiffs incorporate every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth ?Jlly herein. 48. By reason of the forgoing, and in the event the Court determines that no contract Domainscable v. Faraday Complaint 8 existed between Faraday Future and Plaintiffs, the facts recited above establish a claim by Plaintiffs in quantum meruit against Faraday Future. 49. Plaintiffs performed valuable services for Faraday Future, and Faraday Future bene?tted from the services performed on its behalf by Plaintiffs. In providing services to Faraday Future, Plaintiffs were acting pursuant to an express or im?ied request for those services from Faraday Future. 50. On information and belief, an understanding and expectation existed on the part of both Plaintiffs and Faraday Future that Plaintiffs would be compensated for the services they provided to Faraday Future. 51. To date, Plaintiffs have not been compensated for the valuable services they rendered to Faraday Future. 52. Faraday Future?s failure to compensate Plaintiffs for the valuable services they provided to Faraday Future has caused and will continue to cause economic injury to Plainti??s. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unjust Enrichment (Against Faraday Future) 53. Plaintiffs incorporate every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein. 54. By reason of the forgoing, and in the event the Court determines that no contract existed between Faraday Futtue and Plaintiffs, the facts recited above establish that Faraday Future would be unjustly enriched if it is not required to compensate Plaintiffs for the valuable services they performed on behalf of Faraday Future. 55. Faraday Future received a bene?t as a result of receiving valuable services from Plainti?'s. 5 6. It would be unjust if Faraday Future were permitted to retain the bene?ts it received as a result of the valuable services performed by Plaintiffs without compensating Plainti?'s for the services they performed, for which they seek damages and restitution of amounts which should have been paid as commission. Domainscable v. Faraday Complaint 9 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Faraday Future as follows: A. For economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $210,000, representing a 15% commission on the $1,400,000 transaction; PRAYER FOR RELIEF B. For costs and expenses of suit; C. For all legally available pie-judgment and post?j udgment interest on any award as determined by the Court; D. For all other relief that the Court shall deem just and proper. Dated: November 3, 2016 Domainscable v. Faraday Complaint 10 0 CHI-010 mum).- FOHCOURI USEONLY D. Kirk 1131_63 O'Connor; and Assoctates 201 Mrssum Street Suite 710 San Fransisco Calrforma 94105 TEEPHONENO: $15) 693-9960 ATTORNEY FOR (Nun): omarnscablc 11 curl of California SU burnt); St San Fransisco NOV 2118 2016 FAX no; (415) 692-6537 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORN comm or San Francsico srnaeunoness: 400 MCA lister Street muncaooness; OLE metronome San Francisco, CA 94105 BY: Lam .- IHANCH NAME: tentatitiatti CASE NAME: Domainscable v. Faraday CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation case . 1 W. to. - "MIde mm? Counter DJoinder iai'i(Amount (Amount JUDGE demanded demanded is ?led with first appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) 325.000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.402) DEPT.: items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). . Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionelly Complex Civil Litigation 8 Auto (22) Breach of contractlwarraniy toe) Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (48) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) 0mm, I Mum", Other collections (09) Conetniction defect (10) am"; To? Insurance coverage (13) Mass ten (40) ?beams (04) Other contract (37) Securities litigation (23) Product liability (24) Real Property ??m?awm? . . rance coverage claims from the Medical malpractice (45) Eminent ?we listed provisionally complex me Other PIIPDIWD (23) condemnation (14) Wrongful eviction (33) types "on'PwDIwD ?mm, To" Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment Business tort/unfair business practice (07) [inhuman of Ind mom (20, Civil rights (03) Unlawful Detainer 9 Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27) intelleclul property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) a??smngugmf: Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Em onment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified above) (43) BP Wrongful lamination (as) Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) This case is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. it the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. Large number of separately represented parties d. a Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties. states. or countries, 'or in a federal court issues that will be time-consuming to resolve c. Substantial amount oi documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply a. monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. punitive 4. Number of causes of action ecil?y): our 5. This case is is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and srve a notice of related case. (You ay use form Chi-015.) Date: 11/18/2016 JeffreyD Kirk - three on PRINT NAME) (granites: Mann on ATTORNEV eon PARTY) NOTICE Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or preceding (except small claims cases or cases filed :JndeggtignProbete Code. Family Code. or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Get. Rules of Court. rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result sa 5. 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. Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case. this cover sheet be used for statistical purposes only. u? Martin Details Page 1 of 2 . . CIVIL GEE COVER SHEET Cal WW. main?: ?may ESSENTIAL O'Connor By Fax . INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET 0 To Plaintiffs and Others Fliin First Pa are. If ou are a first for example, a com taint) in a civil case. must 9 yCivii Case%over Sign? complete and file, along with your first statistics about the one box for the case check the more spe rc one. If the case has multiple causes of action. check r. the and numbers 0 eat contained on cases i?ed. You must complete items 1 throug that best describes the case. if the case fits both a eneral and a more speci?c type of case listed In item_ 1. box that best indicates the primary cause of when ge 1. This information will 6 on the sheet. in item 1. you must check used to compile To assist you In completinw?lthe sheet. examples of the cases that belong under each case type In item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed 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 defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000. exclusive of interest and attomey?s fees. arising from a transaction in which property. services, or men was acquired on credit. A collection case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages. (2 unitive damages. recovery of real property. 4) recovery of ersonai property. or a prejudgment writ of attachment. identi?cation oi a case as a rule 3.740 colie one case on th 3 term means that it wi I be exempt from the eneral tlme-for-servlce requirements and case management rules. unless a defendant files a responsive pieadin. A rule 3.740 co lections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. in com lax cases only. parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is com lax. If a plaintiff believes case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. this must be indicated completith appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a designates a case as complex. the cover sheet must be served with he compgaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may designation. a counter-designation that the case a case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)-Personai injury/Property DamageiWrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration. check this item instead of Auto) Other (Personal Injury! Property DamageiWrongful Death) 011 Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal injury! Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice- Physicians 3 Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other (23) Premises Liability slip and fat Intentional Bodily assault, vandalism) Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction oi Emotional Distress Other Non-Pva (Other) Tort Business TortiUnfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination. false arrest) (not civil harassment) (06) Defa(rnation 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 (36) Other Employment (15) CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of ContractiWarraniy (06) Breach of RentallLease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) ContracliWarranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Wa rranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections money owed. open book accounts) (09) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory NotelCoections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Covers Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute RI Property Eminent Domainilnverse Condemnation (t4) 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) (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item: othenvlse. report as Comercial 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 Of?cer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals mo [new Ju? 1' Martin Milk ESSENTIAL and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the is not complex. or, if the has made no designation, a designation that Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 340049.403) Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims involving Mass Tort (40) Sew??es 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- domesfic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certi?cation of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement oi Judgment Case Mlsceggeous Civil Complaint 27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only lnjunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/hon-cornplex) Other Civil Complaint (non-torr/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence ElderIDependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Nama Change Petition for Relief from Late Claim Other Civil Petition CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page 2 of 2 O'Connor