I Fl! David L. Weisberg 211675) KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP U.) John P. Kristenseu (SBN 224132) ALAMEDA COUNTY Christina M. Le 237697) MAR 2 2017 . .. . CLERK OETHE SUPERIOR COURT 1.2540Beatr1ce Street. Sulte 200 l? . Los Angeles, California, 90066 By m-?mm-M? Telephone: 310-507-7924 U: ERICA BAKER. Deputy Fax: 310607-7906 john@krislfensenlaw. cam david@krisrensenlaw. 00m com Attorneys for Plaintiijoamza 011g JOANNA ONO: an individual: 2 LU U3 2 e: Amorm??s fez" Maine-His WEISBERGW THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity; JOHN SEAIRLE, an individual and DOES l. -l 00,, Inclusive [0 Ex) U) Ix) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Case NoCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: Plaintiff, 1. Se?Xual Harassment Quid Pro Quo; 2.. Sexual Harassment Hostile Work. Environment; 3. Retaliation in. Violation. of 4. wrongful Termination Against Public? Policy; and Assault Battery. Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT FOR DEMAND FOR URY-TRIAL. BY FAX I . I 1 INTRODUCTION l. COMES NOW pia'in'titff JOANNA (hereinafter ?Ong? or ?Plaintiff and alleges causes of action against THE REGENTS OF THE UNVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. La) 4 (hereinafter Regents? or ?iDefendant?U, JOHN SEARLE (?John Searle?, ?Scarlet or .5 ?De?andanm and DOES 1 through .100 (referred to collectively within. parts of this Complaint 6 as ?Defendants? :lior damages. 4 i 7 2. These causes ot'action arise from De'l?endants? actions while Ong was employed 8 at the University of California at Berkeley (hereinafter Berkeley?), the ?agship campus 9 of the U.C. Regents, from July 2016 to September 2016 as a research assistant to John Searle, a. 10 U.C.. Berkeley professor in the philosophy department, and concurrently as a consultant with l. the Echn Sear?le Center for Social Ontology (?Center?) at U.C. Berkeley, under the direction of 2 Jennifer l-Iudin (hereinafter Director of the Center. 1.3 3. While Ong was employed at U.C. Berkeley, Searle sexually assaulted Ong and 1.4 then continued to harass her as her employment continued, creating a hostile work fit?urneys for Qinintiifs U30 Zn: Lure 03% mm or: 2:1; 15 environment. Although Ong rejected. Searle?s sexual advances and reported the-assault and 16 harassment to 'Hudin and others employed by U.C. Berkeley, no action was taken to "address 17 the assault or protect Ong from further illegal conduct by Searle. Furthermore U.C. Berkeley 18 was well aware of Searle?s prior similar behavior with other but not 1.9 limited to his students and research assistants. Instead, Defendants took steps protect and cover 20 up Seattle?s assault and harassment of-Ong, as they have done in Seattle?s past history of similar 21 conduct to other students and employees at U.C. Berkeley. Ong was subsequently retaliated 22 against by Defendants when her salary was cut by 50% or more, without cause, and they took 23 adverse actions against Ong that impacted her work, career and image to others. 24 ll. PARTIES 25 4. Plaintiff Orig, an individual, was, at all relevant times, an employee of U.C. 26 . Berkeley, which is located. in the County of Alameda. 27 5. Plaintiff is an Asian-American female in her 20?s. Due to her sex and gender, 28' Plaintiff is entitled to protection under California Department Fair Employment and Housing Comrmavr roaDAMAces; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -2- 2 e- wePteina?rft: skttornng?e we Ix) Act under Cal. Gov Code 12900, el? seq. (hereinafter and California common law. Plaintiff has satis?ed the FEHA requirement, pursuant to Cal. Gov Code 1.2965, by timely ?ling a complaint with the Department ofF air Employment and obtaining a ?fright?to-sue notice? from DFEH prior to ?ling this Complaint. 6. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant U.C. Regents, a public entity, was, at all relevant times, the owner andoperator of U.C. Berkeley, a subsumed entity of the Regents. U.C. Berkeley was the employer of Searle and Hudin at all times relevant, and thus Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that the U.C. Regents is vicariously liable fer their actions. The U.C. Berkeley mascot is known as Os?ki. 7. Defendant Searle is, and at all times mentioned was, an adult individual from the city of Berkeley in Alameda County. 8. Defendant U.C. Regents employed ?Searle with. a conscious disregard of- the rights and safety of others, or authorized or rati?ed the Wrongful conduct for which. Plaintiff seeks damages herein. Searle?s acts/omissions constitute fraud, oppression and/or malice and were conducted on the part of an of?cer, director and/or managing agent of U.C. Regents. 9. Defendant U.C. Regents regularly employs ?ve or more employees and falls within the requirement of FEHA and. Gov Code? 12900, et seq. 10. The true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants by such ?'ctitiOus names. Plaintiff prays for leave. to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ?nally determined. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges thereon, that each of the defendants designated herein as DOE is negligently, intentionally, strictly liable or otherwise legally responsible in. some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently, intentionally, strictly liable or otherwise caused damages proximately thereby to Plaintiff, as is hereinafter alleged. 11. At all times mentioned herein, each and every defendant herein Was the owner, agent, servant, joint venture, alter ego and employee, each of the other and. each was aeting COM FOR DEMAND FOR URY TRIAL . -3- 1 within ?the course and scope of his or her ownership, agency, service, joint venture and [0 employment. 12. At all times mentioned herein, each and every defendant was the successor of 4 the other and each assumes the responsibility for the acts and omissions of all other 5 defendants; 6, 13. Directors, officers, and/or managing agents of'Defendant U.C. Regents and 7 DOES 1. through 100 were otherwisepi?esent or were later informed, advised and notified 8' about the incidents causing Plaintiffs discrimination and damages and thatsaid directors, 9 ofilticers and/or managing agents ratified, adopted, and approved. the actions of Defendant 10. U.C. Regents and DOES 1' through 100. ll. VENUE AND 12 14. Venue and jurisdiction. are proper in, the Alameda Superior Court as all. of the 13 acts and, omissiOns took place at the U.C. Berkeley campus, which is located in the County of 14 Alameda, and-Defendant UC. Regents is located in the County of Alameda. Furthermore, this 2% aw Zn: - in ?as {1392 "Lil CC attorneys stew Rieineztte venue is con.Veni_.ent to the parties and is an appropriate venue fora civil act-ion for damages. 15. Federal, jurisdiction does not exist here. All parties.are California citizens. Furthermore, none of the causes of action involve ?substantial.? questions of federal law. Protection against local prejudice is the essential. purpose of. removal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Thus, defendants cannot remove a case to federal court if 20 defendant is a. citizen. of the State in which such-action. is brought. 28 11.8.0 21 Spencer v. Alien Industries, Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) 393 F.3d 867, 870. Therefore, there is neither 22 complete diversity nor federal questitm-jurisdic?tion. andthis matter is properly venu'ed in this .23 Court. 24 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 25 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANT-S) i 26 16. Plaintiff Ong is a graduate of DC. Berkeley, where she received her Bachelor?s I 27 Degree in Interdisciplinary Studies, with Honors, in 2014. While Ong was still. an, 28 undergraduate student, she took. a class with world-renowned professor of philoSo'phy COMPLAINT FOR DEMAND FORJURY TRIAL -4- sic-Harries?: {or Ptaintiffa WEISBERBW 03 i? U3 (I. y; at U.C. Berkeley, and Hudin, who was the Graduate Student Instructor for the class. Ong was an interested. and active participant in the class, receiving an for her final grade, Through their student-graduate instructor relationship, as well as Plaintiff?s involvement in other seminars run by Hudin, Plaintiff also got to know Hudin well during 'her'undergraduate studies, with Hudin becoming something of a trusted advisor to Orig. 17. In the early summer of 2016, Ong expressed to Hudin an interest in gaining work experience in academiaprior to attending graduate school in the fall of 201.7. Hjudin offered Ong a dual position working at U.C. Berkeley as- a consultant for the John Searle Center for Social Ontology for a salary of $1 ,000 a month, and as a research. associate for Searle himself to help Ong cover her. living expenses. Searle promised to pay Ong $3,000 a month to cover her living expenses. Thus, relying on these. promises, Ong. left. her higher paying job in San Francisco to work at U.C. Berkeley with Searle and Hudin. l8. Ong started her work? with Searle on or about July 18, 2016, when she commenced her training under both Searle andhis prior research assistant at his of?ce at U.C. Berkeley, located at 148 Moses Hall. Professor Searle and'Ms. Orig initially worked well together during thistrainin period, where she would spend each day in close proximity to" Professor Searle, conducting clerical. work for him, such as transcribing notes on. the new books he was working on, checking and responding to emails for him, and discussing topics from his book drafts. Dag and Searle discussed her interest in philosophy and academic work before- attending graduate school, but also her concerns about pursuing these interests while meeting her living costs. Professor Searle reassured her that her living costs and other needs would be taken care of, and that they should have a relationship of ?total trust? between each other. 19. Then, on or about July 22, 2016, after only a week of working together, Searle sexually assaulted Ong. On. that date, he asked. his previous research asSistantto leave his of?ce. He then locked the door behind the assistant and then went directly to Ong to grope her. Professor Searle slid his hands down the back of her spine to :her buttocks and told Ong that ?they were going to be lovers," that he had an ?emotional commitment to inaking'her a public intellectual? and that he was ?going to love her for a long-time.? COMPLAINT FOR DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -5- 2 a: LU (I. 35 ?ctonmya in: Fishne?tiu U?l Ix.) L.) 20. Seattle?s touch placed Ong in immediate shock, fear, confusion and humor, and she did not know what to think or do. Ong immediately rejected Scarlets sexual advances, telling him that she was only there for academic and intellectual purposes and that she would not be his ?lover?. Defendant Searle took his hands off of Ong and apologized, and told her to ?forget it.? Ong was subsequently paid $3,000 for her work with him in. July 2-016 and advised that she should continue working with his other research assistant while he was out of the country on vacation in early August of 201.6. 21. When Searle left for his Vacation in early August of 2016, Ong reported the assault to the other research assistant and Hudin-on separate occasions. Hudin told Ong that she would. protect Ong from Searie?s advances. Hudin also acknowledged that Professor Seatle has had sexual relationships with his students and others in the past in exchange for academic, monetary or other bene?ts. No one working for Searle advised Ong that she should report the assault to upper management at Berkeley or others, or that they would further. report the assault for investigation. 22. Upon Searle?s return to work in late August of 20 1 6, Ongts work environment became increasingly hostile and. awkward. Searle acted as if the assault had never happened. He also cut down her salary by over 50%, to about $1,500 or less a month, by cutting her hourly rate to $15 an hour without any reason given. 23. During Ong?s employment, Searle continued to make inappropriate comments and engage in lewd conduct around her. While they were engaged in work, Searle would occasionally ask Ong to log into a. ?Sugar Baby, Sugar Daddy? website for him, which she refused to do. Sear'le also would speak to Ong in. a sexual manner. On one occasion, when Ong brought up the tepic of American Imperialism as a discussion tepic, Searle responded. "?American Imperialism? Oh boy, that sounds great, honey! Let's go to bed and do that right )3 i now 24. During this time frame, Seattle would also openly watch pornography on his laptop in front of her, with the sound on. Ong also heard the pornography playing from Searle?s of?ce from the hallway outside of his of?ce, while walking by with students. COMPLAINT FOR DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -6- Renarrtewt few Vintnertfr.25. In addition: Searle wenld ?requestth?at Ong access, read and. respond to his University emails: emails that Would include, Searle corresponding ?i?rtatiOusl-y with several young women, including U.C.. Berkeley students and fem-git students from Eur-?Ope, who sought to work as his research assistant, the same position she currently held. 26. In early September of 201 6; Dog reported these issues and her pay cut to Harlin. Harlin told Plaintiff that she would. address) these iSSues with Searle and. upper. management? at U.C. Berkeley in the [(38 Department. 'l-Iudin later admitted that she was not going to address- these issues with upper management out of her respect and loyalty to Professor Searle because she needed to ?protect him.? ?27. hen, on. September 23, 20163 liludin told Ong that she would not bra-retained as a. consultant with the Center, thereby terminating her from. her work. with the Center and Searle. Hudin explained to Plaintiff that she would ?try? to get Orig some money for her Work that summer. 28. Orig was sexually ass?aultedand continuously harassed and, discriminated against by Searle, who retaliated against. het when she denied his sexual advances by CuttingOng?s pay and creating a hostile work environment for her through his continued harassment. Hudin and. others emplo'yed by U.C. Berke'iey, including upper management: knew or. reasonably should. have known of Searle's sexual assault: harassment and discrimination. of Dog and others, including his history of exchanging sexual conduct for monetary and/or educational advancements or other bene?ts while acting in his course and scope of employment with_U.C. Berkeley, through their personal. interactions with. Searle and knowledge of conduct with these women: through emails: prior complaints and other such documents. Hudin, acting in her course and soope of employment with U.C. Berkeley, and other U.C. Berkeley employees/agent?s failed to protect U.C. Berkeley students, employees Such. as Orig? and Others, by allowing this conduct to continue, even enabling Searle?s conduct over the years,- causing harm and emotional and financial damages to Ong and others. 29.. Ong. believes that Searle: Hudin and potentially other employees/agents of U.C. Berkeley, violated several of?the? U.C. Regent and U.C. Berkeley-s employment, sexual COM minim? FORDAMAG es; DEM AND FOR JURY TRIAL -7- to l? CE attorneys for ?associate harassment and discrimination and other similar policies, policies which were not enforced or were otherwise insufficient to protect Dag and others from the sexual assault. harassment and other illegal activities she experienced. 30. As a result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained and will continue to sustain economic and non-economic damages including loss of eaminga emotional distress and medical. costs, and other damages. Plaintiff seeks past and future economic and non- eco?nomic damages, other items of special damages, costs, prejudgment and post judgment interest and attorneys? fees as well as any other relief allowable by law. 31. The actions by Searle were done with a conscious disregard and malice towards Plaintiff. V. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (SEXUAL HARASSMENT VIOLATION or FLEHA PRO Que) (Against all Defendants) 32. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-a'lleges each and. every allegation set forth in. each and every preceding paragraph, of this Complaint: as though. fully set forth herein. 33. "Plaintiff was an employee of U.C. Berkeley working in a dual position as a research assistant for Seattle and consulting-position with, the Center. She was an employee within the meaning of Cal. Gm: Code 12926 and at all. times during her employment she performed in a competent, satisfactory manner. 34. Searle made unwanted sexual advances to Plaintiff by groping her, in addition to engaging in other unwanted verbal conduet of a sexual nature with Plaintiff, 35. That employment decisions affecting Plaintiff weremade based on her rejection and camplaints of Searle?s sexual advances or conduct. 36. That at the time of his conduct, Searle was an employee of U.C. Berkeley, acting - in the course and scope of employment. 37. That Plaintiff was harmed and Searle?s conduct was a substantial factor in FOR DEMAND FOR URY TRIAL causing Plaintist harm. 2- 38. Defendants, and each of them, sexually harassed Plaintiff in violation of the 3 FEHA, Cal. Gov 'lf. Code ?l2900, et seq. 4 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in addition to 5 the practices enumerated above, Defendants may have engaged "in other sexual harassment 6 practices against her wl-iich are not yet fully known. 7 40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing and intentional 8 harassment against her, Plaintiff has sustained, and continues to sustain economic and non- 9 economic damages including loss of earnings, emotional distress and medical costs, and other 10 damages. Plaintiff seeks past and fitt?nre economic and non?economic damages, other items of if?) E: Special damages, costs, prejudgment and post judgment interest and attorneys? fees as well as 51 12 any other. relief allowable by law. :5 E13 l3 Plaintiff further requests attorneys? fees be awarded to her pursuant to Ca]. ii Lg l4 Gov?r. Code 12965, and exemplary/punitive damages against Searle. I .1 l5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 16 (SEXUAL HARASSMENT at Vrom'rrou or FEHA - HOSTILE WORK. ENVIRONMENT) 17 5 (Against all Defendants) . 18 42. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every l9 allegation set forth in each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint?, as though fully set 20 forth herein. 2'1 43. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because of her sex and 22 gender while she was employed by U.C. Berkeley. 23 i 44. The harassing conduct was so severe, widespread and persistent that a 24 reasonable person. of the same sex and gender in Plaintiffs circumstances would have 25 considered. the work environment to be. hostile or abusive. 26 45. Plaintiff considered. the work environment to be hostile and abusive. 27 46. Searle= Plaintiff?s supervisor with actual authority over Plaintiff, engaged in such 28 unwanted harassing conduct. COMPLAINT FOR DEMAND FOR Juav TRIAL -9- LU U3. 2 LU Ci: getter-neg: for Ptoineif?e [0 IO IQ Lu 47. Plain-tiff was banned and Searle?s conduct was. a substantial factor in causing such harm. 48. Therefore, Plaintiff?s was employed in a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Cal. Gov? Code 12900, et seq. 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that. in addition to the practices enumerated above, Defendants may have engaged in other sexual harassment practices against her which are not yet fully known. 50. As a direct and proximate remit of Defendants? willful, knowing and intentibnal harassment against her, Plaintiff has sustained, and continues to sustain economic and non- economic damages including loss of earnings, emotional distress and medical costs, and other damages. Plaintiff seeks past and future economic and non-economic damages, other items of special damages, costs, prejudg?nient and post judgment interest and attomeys? fees as 'well as any other relief allowable by law. 51. il?laintiff further requests attorneys? fees beawarded to "her pursuant to Cal. Gov Code .1 2965, and exemplary/putridve darnages against Searle. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Rerauarion VIOLATION or FEHA (Against all Defendants) 52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth .in each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 53. Berkeley, through the acts of Searle and l-lindin, discharged Plaintiff based on her rejection of Sear-leis sexual advances, and .her complaints. of Sea?rle?s misconduct and the impact that Ong?s complaints had on her pay. 54. Plaintiff?s complaints regarding Searle?s misconduct to her supervisors, and. her rejections of Scarle?s advances, were motivating factors for Defendants to out'PlaintifFS pay, and also caused Defendants to take aetions which impact Plaintist career and image, including the eventual termination of her employment.- COMPLAINT son DEMAND FOR ?unv TRIAL -1 0.. . I . .l 55. Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendants? retaliatory conduct was a substantial I 2 factor in causing that harm. 3 56. Defendants" retaliatory conduct was .in violation. of the FBI-IA, Cal. Gov Code 4 12-900, et seq. 57. Plaintiff is informed. and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in. addition to 6 the practices enumerated above, Defendants may have engaged in other sexual harassment 7 practices against her which are not yet fully 8 58.- As a direct- and proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing and intentional i 9 retaliation against her, Plaintiff has sustained, andcontinues to sustain economic and non? 2 t: .10 economic damages including loss of earnings, emotional distress and medical costs, and other . 3 11 damages. Plaintiff seeks past and future economic and non-economic damages, other'itenis of 12 special damages, costs, prejudgnient and post judgment interest and attorneys? fees as wellas ?53 2. 13 any other relief allowableby law. g. 14 59. Plaintiff further requests attorneys? fees be awarded to her pursuant to Cal. 31? 15 Gov Code 1.2965, and exemplary/punitive damages against Searle. l6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1 7 (WRONCFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY) i 18 (Against all Defendants), 19 .60. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every 20 allegationset forth in each and every preceding paragraph of. this Complaint, as though. fully set 21 forth herein. '22 61.- 'Plaintiff, who was employed by Defendants, was wrongfully discharged after 23 she reported Searle?s sexual assault and harassment to her supervisors at U.C. Berkeley, in 24 violation of public policy supporting such reporting. 25 62. Plaintiffs conduct was a motivating factor behind her termination. 26 63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendantsz actions, Plaintiff has sustained, 27 and continues to sustain economic and non-economic damages including loss of earnings, 28 emotional distress and medical. costs, and other damages. Plaintiff seeks past and future COMPLAINT son DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -1 1 - {weer-nearer for Pteineifta mg} "?113 sag U) economic and non-ecctnomic damages, other items of special damages, costs, preiudgment and post judgment interest and attorneys? fees as well as any other relief allowable? by law. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Assam-?1? BATTERY (Against.Defendant?John Searle and Does 1 through 50) 64'. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and re?alleges eachand every allegation set forth in each, and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint, as thoughfully set. forth. herein. 65?. As described. above, Seattle and Does 1 through 50, grabbed Plaintiff s'rear, attempting to caress her. 66. At no time did Plaintiff consent to these unwanted acts and touchings. 67. In doing the aforementioned acts, defendants Searle and Bees 1 thrOugh. 50, and each of them, intended to cause and did cause Plaintiff to be placed in apprehension of harmful and offensive contact with her body. 68. As a direct and proximate result of the. a'lbrementioned acts, Plaintiff. was. in fact placed. in great apprehension of harmful and offensive conduct with. her body. 69. As a direct and proximateresult of the a?lt?oi?emengtioned acts, Plaintiff was caused to and did suffer great and extreme embtional distress including shock, anxiety, Worry, depression, sleeplessness, modi?cation, humiliation,and indignity. Said emotional distress continues from day to day and is of such. a substantial and enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized Society Should be expected to endure such. distress. 70. Defendants Scenic and Does 1. through 50, and each of them, carriedout the aforementioned acts knowing that great bodily injury and emotional "distress were substantially" certain to be caused to Plaintiff; yet Defendants proceeded to engage in said? despicable acts maliciously and with. a ?conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff. 71. Plaintiff is, therelbre, entitled to damages in an amount to be pto'v'en at the time of trial. COMPLAINT FOR DEMAND non RY TRIAL ?etarncya to? PRAYER. FOR RELIEF WHEREFOZRE, Plaintiff requests of this Court the following relief: A. For general damages: in an amount. to be proven at the time of trial; 13 For special damages, in. an. amount to be proven at the time of trial j, C. For loss Cf earnings, in anamount to be p'rove'n at. the time of trial; For an, award of pre?udgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; Er For. consequential damages} in an amount to be proven at the time of' trial; An award of exemplary/punitive damages against Searle; G. For attorneys? fees and costs on all applicableicauses of action; H. For an, award providing for payment of costs of suit; and I. And for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and. preper. Dated: March 20, 2017 WEISBERG, John P. Kristensen. David. L. Weisberg Christina M. Le Attorneys for Plaintiff oanna Ong FOR DEMAND FOR Ju RY TRIAL -13- 'l DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL l9 Plaintiffhereby demandSa trial by jury on all issues-which may be tried by aj?ury. p: LA Dated: 20.1.7" 7 P. Kri?tensen David Christina Le 7 .9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Joanna Ong Pi?inawim nun?d ?zagrnayn for Lu H553 03.4?; CI: XE COMPLAINT FOR. DEMAND FOR TRIAL -14-