EWEW David M. Ring, State Bar No. 151124 Louanne Masry State Bar No. 190559 TAYLOR RING, LLP 109005Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 209-4100 Facsimile: (310) 208-5052 - FILED NOV 12 2014 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, mm; 5: 1212015 13!. LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO, an individual; CASE NOand DARRIN DOMINGO, an individual, . Plaintiffs, vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL) i STEVEN ROSENBERG, M.D., an individual; 3 business form unknown; STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive i Defendants. Plaintiffs LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO and DARRIN DOMINGO hereby complain and allege as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO competent adult. 2. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff DARRIN DOMINGO adult and was and is the husband of Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO. 3. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs LIZA LUMANLAN-DOM ate-3 2133K) Au, 5 BJWH 3 DARRIN DOMINGO resided in the County of Los?Angeles, State of California. 1313 13$ ?393 1 3% area are?- gar a :6 I 5" snt?o 81:" Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Deputy Sherri Fi. Caggive Of?cer/Clerk By aunya olden ?5 01'. a 5 2.: 1 It 430x542?: i 353- ?a Md ?305 it) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5:03;" .1. I33 139'912?9?538 all times herein mentioned, Defendants PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, were and are: engaged in owning, operating, maintaining, managing and doing business in the State of California; engaged in rendering medical, surgical, clinical, pathological, diagnostic, nursing, skilled nursing, and other medical, surgical, and/or custodial care and services to the general public for compensation; and a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint venture, unincorporated association, or some other business entity doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. At all times mentioned herein, PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER was and is located at 3720 Lomita Boulevard in Torrance, California 90505. At all times mentioned, Defendants DOES 21 through 50, inclusive, were responsible for the ownership, operation, control, management, and/or supervision of PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER. 5. At all times mentioned, Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, MD. and DOES 51 through 70, inclusive, were and are licensed physicians and/or other health care providers who participated in the care and treatment of Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO. 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned, Defendant STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, MD. was and is an employee of, owner of, partner in, or in a joint venture or another business relationship with Defendants PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER and/or DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and their principals, of?cers or other individuals. 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned, Defendant STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D. and/or DOES 51 through 70 were and are employees of, owners of, partners in, or in a joint venture or another business relationship with Defendant STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC. and/or DOES 71 through 100. 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned, Defendant STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC. and/or DOES 71 through 100, Were and are corporate (or other business form) entities in good standing, organized under the laws of the State of California by Defendant STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, MD to conduct his medical practice. 9. Since the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 ll 12 13 otherwise, of the Defendants designated and sued as DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, those Defendants are designated by their fictitious names. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that each of the Defendants designated and sued'as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein below, and legally caused the injury and damages to Plaintiffs as herein alleged. Plaintiffs will ask leave of this Court to amend this pleading to insert the true names and capacities of these Defendants designed by their ?ctitious names when those facts become known to Plaintiffs. 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that at the times and places mentioned herein Defendants were the agents, servants, and employees of the remaining Defendants, and each of them, and each of them was at all times and places mentioned herein acting within the purpose, course, and scope of said agency, service and employment. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, MD. was the agent, servant or employee of Defendants PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER and/or STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC. 11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that the assistants, nurses, and others participating in the care of Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO were under the supervision and control of Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, and that Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were responsible for the physician?s assistants, nurses, and others participating in the surgical care of Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO. 12. Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were and are now corporations, partnerships, associations, joint ventures, or other entities organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and were at all times and places mentioned herein engaged in the ownership, operation, and maintenance of surgery centers, medical centers and/or hospitals open to the general public and to paying patients in and about the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 19 20 21 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times relevant herein, each Defendant was completely dominated and controlled by his/her/its co-Defendant and each was the alter ego of the other as to the events set forth herein. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 14. On or about March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Liza Lumanlan-Domingo (hereinafter sometimes referred to as ?Liza,?) age 42, was pregnant. On that date, Plaintiff Liza visited her obstetrician for her routine 19-week pregnancy check-up. At the obstetrician?s of?ce, a fetal ultrasound indicated ?no fetal heartbeat.? Further studies conducted that day con?rmed fetal demise had occurred at approximately 16 weeks gestation. Following this diagnosis of fetal demise, Plaintiff?s obstetrician?s of?ce recommended that Plaintiff Liza consult with surgeon, Defendant Steven H. Rosenberg, M.D. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as ?Dr. Rosenberg?) to discuss removal of the demised fetus. 15. Plaintiff Liza spoke with Dr. Rosenberg the evening of March 13, 2014 to discuss the surgical options available to Plaintiff. Liza advised Dr. Rosenberg that she would consider the options which were discussed and get back to him the next day. 16. On the morning of Friday, March 14, 2014, Plaintiff Liza contacted Dr. Rosenberg?s of?ce to inform his of?ce that, based on Dr. Rosenberg?s recommendation, she had decided to undergo a surgical procedure called a ?dilation and evacuation? or Liza made an appointment to see Dr. Rosenberg at 2:00 pm. on that date. 17. Liza arrived at Dr. Rosenberg?s of?ce on the afternoon of March 14, 2014 with her husband, Plaintiff Darrin Domingo. Upon arrival, Plaintiff Liza ?lled out new-patient paperwork and then Liza and her husband were taken to Dr. Rosenberg?s of?ce. Dr. Rosenberg met with Liza and her husband and Dr. Rosenberg advised them that the procedure was not covered by Liza?s health insurance and that Liza would have to pay for the procedure out of her own pocket. In addition, Dr. Rosenberg asked his secretary to come into the of?ce to con?rm that Liza?s insurance would not cover the procedure. Liza also asked Dr. Rosenberg where the procedure would take place. Liza requested that the procedure be performed at Torrance Memorial Medical Center, where Dr. Rosenberg had staff privileges and where Liza worked as a registered nurse. However, Dr. Rosenberg suggested that the procedure be performed at Defendant Paci?c Coast Surgical Center because it would be less expensive 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES since he represented the procedure would not be covered by Liza?s insurance. To support his representation that the procedure would be less expensive at PCSC, Dr. Rosenberg called Torrance Memorial Medical Center and put a ??nancial advisor? from TMMC on the speaker phone. Dr. Rosenberg asked the ?nancial advisor how much it would cost a patient who had no insurance to have the procedure at TMMC. The ?nancial advisor stated it would cost approximately $1,800 for the hospital bill, but that there would be additional costs for anesthesia, pathology, and other costs, which could exceed $4,000, for a total of about $6,000. 18. Next, Dr. Rosenberg provided Plaintiffs with a brochure of Paci?c Coast Surgical Center (hereinafter sometimes referred to as and advised Plaintiffs that the procedure, if done at PCSC, would only cost the following: $1,200 for the surgical center, $350.00 for anesthesia, and $800.00 for a pre-operative procedure performed by Dr. Rosenberg where ?laminaria? are placed in Liza?s body. Dr. Rosenberg and his secretary also advised Plaintiffs that these costs would have to be paid in cash. 19. Plaintiffs agreed to have the procedure performed at PCSC based on Dr. Rosenberg?s representation that Plaintiff?s insurance would not cover the procedure. The procedure was scheduled for Monday, March 17, 2014 at 7:00 am, with the ?laminaria? pre-operative placement set for the morning of Sunday, March 16, 2014. Plaintiffs were advised to bring $800 cash to give to Dr. Rosenberg on Sunday, March 16, 2014. 20. On Sunday, March 16, 2014, at approximately 7:00 am, Plaintiffs arrived at Dr. Rosenberg?s of?ce address and met him in the parking lot, where they proceeded to his of?ce. No one else was present at Dr. Rosenberg?s of?ce. In his of?ce, Dr. Rosenberg performed the ?laminaria? placement procedure. Following the procedure, Dr. Rosenberg asked for $800 cash. Plaintiffs gave Dr. Rosenberg $800, which he placed in his pocket. Plaintiffs did not receive a receipt that day. Dr. Rosenberg then locked up his of?ce, and he and the plaintiffs walked to their respective cars and left the of?ce. 21. The following day, Monday March 17, 2014, Plaintiffs arrived at PCSC at approximately 5:30 am. Upon arrival, Plaintiff Liza ?lled out new-patient forms and gave $1,200 cash to the receptionist. Liza was told that she would receive a separate bill from the anesthesiologist 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES for $350. Liza was taken to the pre?operative area around 6:00 am. According to Liza?s medical records, anesthesia was started at 6:20 surgery was started at 6:50 surgery ended at 7:05 and anesthesia ended at 7:15 am. At approximately 7:30 Liza?s husband, Plaintiff Darrin Domingo, who had been waiting in the lobby of PCSC during his wife?s surgery, was told by a nurse that the surgery was completed and that he could see his wife in the recovery room. Plaintiff Darrin brie?y saw Liza in the recovery room and was told that Liza would be ready to leave in approximately ?ve minutes and was asked to wait for Liza in the lobby. After Liza?s husband left the recovery room and as she was changing her clothes, Liza noticed that she was bleeding profusely. Liza immediately advised a female recovery nurse of the bleeding. Liza heard the nurse telling other personnel to immediately get Dr. Rosenberg back to the facility (PCSC) 22. After a significant amount of time elapsed, a male, who Plaintiffs presume was a nurse, came out to the lobby and told Darrin that his wife was having some ?bleeding.? This presumed nurse then handed a piece of paper to Plaintiff Darrin with the word ?Hemabate? on it and ordered that Plaintiff Darrin immediately go to Torrance Memorial Medical Center?s pharmacy department to pick up a medication that his wife needed but that PCSC did not have. Plaintiff Darrin, fearing for his wife, immediately left and drove to TMMC, where he went to the pharmacy department, handed the pharmacy worker the piece of paper he was provided at PCSC, and after some time, was provided the medication at the pharmacy department for which he was required to pay approximately $186.00. Darrin then returned to PCSC. When Darrin returned to PCSC, he returned to the recovery room area, knocked on the door, and a presumed nurse opened the door and took the medication from him. 23. After some time, Defendant Dr. Rosenberg came out to the lobby where Plaintiff Darrin was waiting, pulled him aside to the recovery room hallway, and told Darrin that Liza had some ?bleeding? and that he had performed another ?emergency? surgical procedure on her. Dr. Rosenberg also advised Darrin that due to the amount of blood loss suffered by his wife, Liza would be taken by ambulance to Torrance Memorial Medical Center. Dr. Rosenberg told Darrin to return to the lobby to wait for the ambulance. As Darrin returned to the lobby, an ambulance and paramedic trucks were outside the building. Simultaneously, Plaintiff Darrin saw his wife being wheeled out of the recovery room door accompanied by numerous personnel. Upon seeing his wife in the condition she was in, 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 20 21 22 Plaintiff Darrin thought that she was dead. At that point, concerned for his wife, Darrin asked a presumed nurse, ?what is going on?? The nurse responded by stating Darrin would have to speak to Dr. Rosenberg, however, Dr. Rosenberg was not located. At that point, Darrin left PCSC to drive to the TMMC emergency department where his wife was being taken by ambulance. 24. Following some time waiting in the emergency department, Plaintiff Darrin was advised by a TMMC staff member that his wife had suffered a ?great deal of blood loss? from her surgery and that she would need to be taken to the intensive care unit Plaintiff Liza remained hOSpitalized at TMMC until March 20, 2014. '1 25. Subsequent to Liza?s discharge from TMMC, Plaintiffs have independently discovered, upon information and belief, that Defendant, Dr. Rosenberg, was at all relevant times mentioned herein, a partner, shareholder, and/or owner of Defendant Pacific Coast Surgical Center. Neither Dr. Rosenberg, nor anyone from his of?ce, ever disclosed this information to Plaintiff including at the time Dr. Rosenberg advised Plaintiffs that it would be allegedly more cost effective to have Liza?s surgery performed at PCSC. 26. Also, subsequent to Plaintiff Liza?s discharge from TMMC, Plaintiffs have independently discovered, upon information and belief, that Defendant Dr. Rosenberg, after discovering that Plaintiff Liza was experiencing significant blood loss after his initial procedure, took Plaintiff back into surgery for a second procedure which lasted from approximately 8:45 am. to 9:15 am. During this second surgery, Dr. Rosenberg requested help from another surgeon, Ramin Mirhashemi, MD. According to Plaintiff?s medical records, Dr. Mirhashemi, upon arrival in the operating room, asked if the patient (Plaintiff Liza) had received any ?Hemabate? of which he was told Plaintiffs allege, upon information and belief, that PCSC did not have Hemabate available during Plaintiff?s surgical procedures at PCSC. Plaintiffs also allege, upon information and belief, that Hemabate is a medication used to control bleeding. 27. In addition, subsequent to Plaintiff Liza?s discharge from TMMC, Plaintiffs have independently discovered, upon information and belief, that the procedure performed by Dr. Rosenberg at Torrance Memorial Medical Center would have, in fact, been covered under Plaintiff Liza?s health insurance. Thus, as further detailed below, Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Rosenberg, and/or 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES his staff, intentionally provided false and misleading information to Plaintiff in order to have the procedure conducted at PCSC to Defendants? advantage. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE PER SE FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 654.2 (By Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO Against Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC., and DOES 51 through 100, Inclusive) 28. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations I contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint. 29. As alleged herein, Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC, and DOES 51 through 100, inclusive, violated Business and Professions Code Section 654.2 which prohibits physicians from charging a patient on behalf of, or referring a patient to, any organization in which the physician has a signi?cant bene?cial interest, unless he ?rst discloses such interest in writing to the patient. 30. Defendants breached said provision by failing to inform Plaintiff LIZA as statutorily required, of the signi?cant bene?cial interest Defendant STEVEN ROSENBERG, M.D. held in Defendant PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER. Defendants? conduct constitutes a breach of ?duciary duty, is unethical and unlawful, and constitutes negligence per se. 31. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and other damages, in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (MOORE v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CALIF.) (By Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 32. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint. 33. At all times relevant herein, Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, MD, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, acted on behalf of Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO with regards to her health, safety, care, and wellbeing. 34. Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, STEVE H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, and each of them, had a duty to act with the utmost good faith in the best interests of Plaintiff and owed a ?duciary duty to Plaintiff. 35. Defendants and each of them, breached the aforesaid duty through the acts and omissions described herein by misleading Plaintiff and taking actions that were not in Plaintiff?s best interests but in the best interests of Defendants, including actions for Defendants? ?nancial gain; by failing to disclose all information material to Plaintiff?s consent related to the care, treatment, and conduct described herein; by failing to disclose personal and/or economic interests that affected Defendants? professional judgment; by failing to disclose personal and/or economic interests that con?icted with the interests of Plaintiff; and by not acting as a reasonably careful person or entity in the same or similar capacity would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. 36. As a direct result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff has been harmed as described herein. 37. Defendants? conduct as described herein was despicable and was committed maliciously, fraudulently, and/or oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff and with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, and via intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material facts, 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendants, and each of them, intended to deprive Plaintiff of her property or legal rights all to the detriment of Plaintiff and to the ?nancial bene?t of Defendants and an award of punitive damages in a sum according to proof at trial is justi?ed and appropriate. 38. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and other damages, in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN INFORMED CONSENT (MOORE v. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CALIF.) (By Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 39. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint. 40. At all times relevant herein, Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, acted on behalf of Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO with regards to her health, safety, care, and wellbeing and owed a ?duciary duty to Plaintiff. 41. Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, STEVE H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, and each of them, had a duty to provide Plaintiff informed consent to medical treatment. In that required informed consent, Defendants had a ?duciary duty to disclose all information material to Plaintiffs decision regarding treatment including, but not limited to, the disclosure of personal interests unrelated to her health, whether research or economic. Defendants? failure to disclose such interest constitutes a failure to provide informed consent. 42. Defendants, and each of them, breached the aforesaid duty through the acts and omissions described herein by misleading Plaintiff and taking actions that were not in Plaintiffs best interests but in the best interests of Defendants, including actions for Defendants? ?nancial gain; by 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES failing to disclose all information material to Plaintiff?s consent related to the care, treatment, and conduct described herein; by failing to disclose personal and/or economic interests that' affected Defendants? professional judgment; by failing to disclose personal and/or economic interests that con?icted with the interests of Plaintiff; and by not acting as a reasonably careful person or entity in. the same or similar capacity would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. 43. As a direct result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff has been harmed as described herein. 44. Defendants? conduct as described herein was despicable and was committed maliciously, fraudulently, and/or oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff and with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, and via intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material facts, Defendants, and each of them, intended to deprive Plaintiff of her property or legal rights all to the detriment of Plaintiff and to the ?nancial bene?t of Defendants and an award of punitive damages in a sum according to proof at trial is justi?ed and appropriate. 45. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and other damages, in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND CONCEALMENT (By Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 46. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Complaint. 47. By virtue of their healthcare provider-patient relationship to Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO, Defendants, and each of them, owed a ?duciary duty to Plaintiff to disclose certain facts, as alleged herein. ll COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 48. Defendants made representations to Plaintiff that her health insurance would not cover any portion of the surgical procedure performed by Defendant Dr. Rosenberg and that PCSC was a facility with required and adequate onsite equipment, medication, and trained personnel. These representations were false and were made with the intent that Plaintiff would act in reliance on them. 49. Important and material facts regarding whether Plaintiff?s surgical procedure would be covered by her health insurance and whether PCSC was a facility with required and adequate onsite equipment, medication, and trained personnel were never disclosed by Defendants, and each of them, to Plaintiff, and they remained intentionally concealed to Plaintiff until Plaintiff discovered the true facts on her own following her discharge from the hospital. 50. Defendants, and each of them, had the duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiff as Plaintiff was under the medical care and supervision of said Defendants. Each had the opportunity to do so. Yet, Defendants, and each of them, failed to do so. 51. Plaintiff relied on the assumed good faith of Defendants, and each of them, and as a direct and proximate result of said reliance, Plaintiff failed to receive proper care and treatment. Additionally, Plaintiff had the legal right to make an informed decision about her medical treatment. 52. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and other damages, in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 53. By virtue of the aforesaid, Defendants, and each of them, have acted with fraud and an award of punitive damages in a sum according to proof at trial is justi?ed and appropriate. Defendants, and each of them, also acted despicably and with recklessness, oppression, and malice. 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE PER SE FOR VIOLATION OF HEALTH SAFETY CODE SECTION 1248.15 (By Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 54. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36, 40 through 43, and 47 through 52 of this Complaint. 55. At all times mentioned herein, Paci?c Coast Surgical Center was a licensed outpatient surgery center and Defendants, and each of them, were engaged in providing outpatient surgical services within the state of California. As such, Defendants, and each of them, were obligated at all relevant times herein to comply with various regulatory requirements set forth in the California Health Safety Code governing the operation of outpatient surgical centers and pertaining to outpatient surgery services. 56. Health Safety Code Section requires that in all outpatient surgical settings ?[t]here shall be onsite equipment, medication, and trained personnel to facilitate handling of services sought or provided and to facilitate handling of any medical emergency that may arise in connection with services sought or provided.? 57. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, knowingly, and/or intentionally, and/or in wanton disregard for the rights and welfare of Plaintiff, and/or negligently, engaged in conduct that violated the above-listed regulation by failing to ensure that Paci?c Coast Surgical Center possessed, on site and immediately available to physicians and nursing staff, the necessary medication(s) to facilitate the handling of Plaintiff?s surgical procedure including, but not limited to, the medication known as ?Hemabate. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants, and each of them, knowingly, and/or intentionally, and/or in wanton disregard for the rights and welfare of Plaintiff, and/or negligently, engaged in conduct that violated the above?listed regulation by failing to ensure that Paci?c Coast Surgical Center had appropriate on site equipment, medication, and trained personnel in the event of a surgical emergency, like Plaintiff s, as alleged herein. 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 58. These requirements set forth in the California Health Safety Code exist, in part, for the purpose of preventing the immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of patients, including patients undergoing outpatient surgery, like Plaintiff. 59. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and other damages, in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ. AND AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, ET SEQ. (By Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 60. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36, 40 through 43, 47 through 52, and 55 through 59 of this Complaint. 61. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in an unfair business practice under Business Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., in engaging in the following: Recommending that Plaintiff?s surgical procedure be performed at Paci?c Coast Surgical Center without ?rst disclosing their bene?cial interest in that facility; Failing to disclose that Defendant Dr. Rosenberg had a bene?cial interest in Paci?c Coast Surgical Center, when referring and/or accepting patients, including Plaintiff, to that facility; and Ratifying, authorizing, and/or approving of Defendant Rosenberg?s behavior and conduct due to the pro?t gain for the remaining Defendants, and each of them. 62. Members of the public, including Plaintiff, were, and are, likely to be deceived as a result of Defendants? practices because they are unaware of the bene?cial interests and/or con?icts of interest involved in the care and treatment received at PCSC. Members of the public would reasonably assume that the only reason for Defendants? recommendations for treatment at that facility would be 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES purely medical and in their best interests. Non-disclosure of con?icts of interests in the context of the rendering of medical services is unethical and offends established public policy and is therefore in contravention of California Business Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. 63. Each of the Defendants was, and continues to be, involved in a competitive activity. Defendants are in competition with other surgeons and surgical centers to provide medical services. Defendants are continuously attempting to bene?t ?nancially therefrom. 64. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in unethical and unlawful business practices by violating numerous statutory provisions and professional codes of conduct including, but not limited to, the following. American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 8.03, ?Con?icts of Interest,? states: ?Under no circumstances may physicians place their own ?nancial interests above the welfare of their a con?ict develops between the physician?s ?nancial interest and the physican?s responsibilities to the patient, the con?ict must be resolved to the patient?s benefit.? Defendants breached said Code of Medical Ethics by placing their own ?nancial interests above the welfare of their patients, including Plaintiff; and Business Professions Code Section 654.2(a) which, as further alleged previously herein, prohibits physicians from referring a patient to any organization in which the physician has a signi?cant bene?cial interest, unless he ?rst discloses such interest in writing to the patient. As alleged previously herein, Defendants breached this provision. Health Safety Code Section which, as further alleged previously herein, requires that in all outpatient surgical settings ?[t]here shall be onsite equipment, medication, and trained personnel to facilitate handling of services sought or provided and to facilitate handling of any medical emergency that may arise in connection with services sought or provided.? As alleged previously herein, Defendants breached this provision. 65. Said violations by Defendants gives rise to civil liability in that such transgressions are below the standard of care required of competent health care providers, and such transgressions constitute violations of Business Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 20 21 22 66. Business Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., prohibits unfair business practices. The conduct, as set forth above, constitutes an unfair business practice in that the acts and/or omissions of Defendants caused harm to Plaintiff, the general public, and/or competitors which outweighed any bene?ts of said acts or omissions. 67. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants,and each of them, knew and were aware of Defendants? unlawful, unfair or deceptive business practices alleged above, cooperated with each other, aided and abetted, and induced Defendants? violations in that Defendants had knowledge of such violations and did nothing to remedy the past violations or prevent future violations. Moreover, each of the Defendants pro?ted from the aforesaid acts. 68. As a legal result of Defendants? transgressions, as set forth above, not only was Plaintiff damaged, but all consumers of medical services of the type provided by Defendants, as well as all competitors of Defendants, were damaged in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court, the exact amount to be proven at the time of trial. 69. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court order that Defendants, and each of them, be required to disgorge the pro?ts they have wrongfully obtained through the use of these practices as I alleged herein. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE (By Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 70. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 40 through 43, 47 through 52, and 55 through 68 of this Complaint. 71. During all times alleged herein in which Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO had a healthcare provider-patient relationship with Defendants, and each of them, Defendants agreed to perform and undertook to perform for Plaintiff all services necessary to her treatment, which included, but was not limited to, case management, observation, attention, examination, testing, evaluation, diagnosis, prescription and administration of necessary medications, care, and surgical and non- surgical treatment. In so doing, said Defendants, and each of them, established a relationship with 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff, giving rise to each Defendant?s duty to Plaintiff to provide skillful management of her treatment, which included, but was not limited to, case management, observation, attention, examination, testing, evaluation, diagnosis, prescription and administration of necessary medications, care, and surgical and non-surgical treatment. 72. As alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to Plaintiff to provide skillful management of her treatment, including but not limited to case management, observation, attention, examination, testing, evaluation, diagnosis, prescription and administration of necessary medications, care, and surgical and non-surgical treatment. 73. At all times and places mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, carelessly, negligently, and recklessly instructed, evaluated, examined, diagnosed, prescribed for, cared for, and treated Plaintiff for her medical needs. Plaintiff ?arther alleges that Defendants, and each of them, provided hospital, medical, surgical, nursing, care, and services in a careless and negligent manner, and which were committed with wanton and reckless disregard of Plaintiff and her rights, all of which, among other things, directly and proximately resulted in injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged herein. 74. As alleged above, the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, as described herein, constituted intentional, oppressive, wanton, and/or reckless conduct. Plaintiff further alleges that these Defendants acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. 75. Additionally, the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, includes negligence by medical, technical, administrative and clerical staff of Defendants by persons not within the de?nition of ?health care provider? under California Civil Code ?3333.1 or the de?nition of ?professional negligence? under California Civil Code ?3333.l. 76. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent, reckless and careless acts, omissions and conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered harm as described herein. 77. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and other damages, in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INT ENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (By Plaintiff LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 78. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 77 of this Complaint. 79. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, was outrageous. 80. Plaintiff was Defendants? patient. As such, Defendants were in a special position of authority and trust. 81. Plaintiff suffered extreme and severe emotional distress as a direct result of Defendants? conduct as alleged herein. 82. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages including, but not limited to, physical and mental pain and suffering, severe emotional distress, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and other damages, in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 83. Defendants, and each of them, are also liable for punitive damages because said Defendants? conduct was malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive and was carried out with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (BYSTANDER) (By Plaintiff DARRIN DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 84. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 31. 85. As a result of the negligence of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff Darrin Domingo, suffered serious emotional distress, including mental suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliatiOn, and shame from perceiving the injuries to his wife, Plaintiff Liza Lumanlan-Domingo. 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 86. Plaintiff Darrin Domingo was present at the scene of the injury of Plaintiff Liza Lumanlan-Domingo and was aware that Plaintiff Liza Lumanlan-Domingo was being injured. 87. Defendants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Darrin Domingo serious emotional distress. 88. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff Darrin Domingo has incurred special and general damages in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (By Plaintiff DARRIN DOMINGO Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive) 89. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 31 and 84 through 88 of this Complaint. 90. At all times mentioned, Plaintiffs Darrin Domingo and Liza Lumanlan-Domingo were husband and wife. 91. Prior to her injuries, Plaintiff Liza Lumanlan-Domingo was able to, and did, perform her duties as a spouse. However, subsequent to the injuries to Plaintiff Liza, as alleged herein, and as a proximate cause, thereof, she has been unable to perform such services. By reason thereof, Plaintiff Darrin Domingo has been permanently injured and damaged and has been deprived of the consortium of his wife, all to his damage in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO and DARRIN DOMINGO pray for judgment against Defendants STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, STEVEN H. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, as follows: 1. For an award of general and special damages according to proof; 2. For punitive damages, as to the second, third, fourth, and eighth causes of action only; 19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES the sixth cause of action, for restoration to Plaintiff of all monies acquired by means of any act or practice declared by this Court to be unlawful or fraudulent or to constitute unfair competition under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. and disgorgement of pro?ts wrongfully obtained through the use of such practices; 4. For prejudgment interest, according to proof; 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: November 10, 2014 TAYLOR RING, LLP By: David M. Ring 0 Louanne Masry Attorneys for Plaintiffs DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs LIZA LUMANLAN-DOMINGO and DARRIN DOMINGO request that this action be determined by trial by jury. TAYLOR RING, LLP Dated: November 10, 2014 WW By: David M. Ring A Louanne Masry Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES In? . 9 CM- OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State arr number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY _Louanne Masry it 190559 TAYLOR RING 10900 Wilshire Boulevard Su - Court of California . perlor Su 1 9 2 0 County of Los Ange 95 Los Angeles, CA 90024 reremoem. (310) 209?4100 mm. (310) 208?5052 N0v122014 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): a i nt i SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Shem Ca ive STREET ADDRESSDeputy MAILING ADDRESS: CA 9 0 2 BY aunya olden Angeles, Mosk Courthosue CASE NAME: LUMANLAN-DOMINGO VS . ROSENBERG CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASEFGES 6 3 6 6 Unlimited Limited Counter Joinder 82mg?gted is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant JUDGE: exceeds $251000) $251000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) Items 1-6 below must be completed (see insi?mctlons on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionaily Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal- Rules of Court. rules 3-400-3-403l Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3740 collections (09) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other (Personal DamagelWrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Cl Product liability (24) I: Medical malpractice (45) Other (23) condemnation (14) (Other) Tort i:i Wr?ngfu' BVictiO? (33) Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) I: Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Defamation (13) CI Commercial (31) Fraud (16) Residential (32) Construction defect (10) CI Mass tort (40) El Securities litigation (28) I: Environmental/Toxic tort (30) insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41) Other collections (09) I: insurance coverage (18) Other contract (37) Real Property i:i Eminent domain/Inverse Enforcement of Judgment i:i Enforcement Of judgment (20) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) [3 Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tort (35) Ci Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment I:i Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) CI Wrongful termination (36) I: Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) C) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case :1 is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. lithe case is complex. mark the factors 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. [3 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 3. -'Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. monetary b. i: nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. punitive 4. Nil-timber of causes of action (specify): Ten 5. This case Cl is is not a Class action suit. 6. lfnhere are any known related cases, ?le and serve a notice of related case (Y may use form CM-015.) Date; November 1 2 2 0 1 4 Louanne Masrv #190559 (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY 0R ATTORNEY FOR 12.1 NOTICE - Plaintiff must ?le this cover Sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in the action or proceeding (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. - File this cover Sheet in addition to any cover Sheet required by local court rule. . iif?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. 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; Judicial Council of California SO Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration. Sid. 3.10 CM-01O [Rev. July 1, 2007) US ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COV.HEET 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 check 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. A cover 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 money owed 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. It 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 plaintiffs 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 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 DamagelWrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury! Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice? Physicians Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other (23) Premises Liability slip and fall) Intentional Bodily assault. vandalism) Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress Negligent In?iction of Emotional Distress MOther (Other) Tort Btrsiness Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination. i"?false arrest) (not civil it. _.;harassment) (08) Defamation slander. libel) Friend (16) intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) (?legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice in (not medical or legal) Other Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contractharranty Breach?Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract! Warranty Other Breach of Contractharranty 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 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 Of?cer Order Notice of Appeal?Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET 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- domeslic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certi?cation 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 Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified 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 Page 2 of 2 ll 0 HA 1: A SHORTTITLE: LUMANLAN-DOMINGO vs. ROSENBERG CASENUMBER DU 3 6 I) 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 2.0 in all new civil case ?lings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: JURY YES CLASS CI YES LIMITED YES TIME ESTIMATED FOR i IDAYS i Item ll. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps - If you checked "Limited Case?, skip to Item Pg. 4): Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected. Step 2: Check 911g Superior Court type of action in Column below which best describes the nature of this case. Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have checked. For any. exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.0. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column below) 1. Class actions must be ?led in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, central district. 6. Location of property .or permanently garaged vehicle. 2. May be ?led In central (other county. or no bodily Injury/property damage). 7. Location where petitioner reSIdes. 3. Location where cause of action arose. 8. Location wherein defendantlres ondent functions wholly. 4. Location where bodily injury, death or dama occurred. 9. Location where one or more of he arties reside. 5. Location where performance required or de endant resides. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner 0 Ice Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item complete Item IV. Sign the declaration?.Civil Case Cover Sheet . Type of Action 7 Applicable Reasons - 15 Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above in. 0 Auto (22) I: A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death 1., 2., 4. ?5 c: Uninsured Motorist (46) CI A7110 Personal Injury/Property DamagelWrongful Death Uninsured Motorist 1., 2., 4. A6070 Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos (04) I: A7221 Asbestos - Personal Death Product Liability (24) A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmentalI:l A7210 Medical Malpractice - PhySICIans Surgeons 1., 4. 315- Medical Malpractice (45) . . i 5 5, A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractlce 1A7250 Premises slip and fall) 1., 4. 9 Other and personal Injury I:l A7230 Damage/Wrongful Death 1 4 (E: Property Damage Wrongful Death A7270 Intentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress 1., . (23) A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death ., 4. LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 Use Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of4 09 ia~ SHORT TITLE: LUMANLAN-DOMINGO VS . ROSENBERG CASE NUMBER A .. . Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons - category NO- (Check only one) . a See Step 3 Above E. Business Tort (07) A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraudlbreach of contract) 1.. 3. I- Eg Civil Rights (08) Cl A6005 Civil Rightleiscrimination 1.. 2.. 3 n. - 8 5:2 Defamation (13) A6010 Defamation (slander/libel) 1.. 2.. 3 Fraud (16) A6013 Fraud (no contractA6017 Legal Malpractice 1.. 2.. '0 Professmnal Negligence (25) I: A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) 1.. 2. Other (35) :1 A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort 21.3. . . . . Wrongful Termination (36) Cl A6037 Wrongful Termination 1.. 2.. 3. 2 El A6024 OtherEmployment Complaint Case 1. 2 3 9- Other Em lo ment 15 I: A6109 Labor CommissionerAppeals 10. A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful 2.. 5. Breach of Contract;' Warranty emetic") 2.. 5. A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach -Se er Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) 1 2 5 CI A6019 Negligent Breach ofContractJWarranty (no fraud) I: A6028 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) 1" 2" 5' I: A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 2lens (09) Cl A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case 2.. 5. Insurance Coverage (16) :1 A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1.. 2.. 5.. 8. A6009 Contractual Fraud 1.. 2.. 3.. 5. Other Contract (37) A6031 Tortious Interference 1.. 2.. 3.. 5. I: A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not 1.. 2.. 3.. 8. l:l A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Number of parcels 2. Wrongful Eviction (33) A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 2.. 6. ME I: A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 2.. 6. .m OtherReaI Property (26) A6032 Quiet Title 2.. 6. A6060 2.. 6. unlanU' A6021 Unlawful Detainer?Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction?jg Unlamu' Deta'mr'Res'dem'a' A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs orwrongful eviction) 2.. 6. (.35 Unlawful Detainer- . Post_Foreclosure (34) I: A6020F Unlawful Detainer Post Foreclosure 2.. 6. Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38) I: A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs 2.. 6. LACIV 109 (Rev. 03111) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 0f 4 . . LUMANLAN-DOMINGO VS . ROSENBERG CASE NUMBER A 1 1' - .- Civil Case Cover Sheet 5 Type of Action 4 in Applicable Reasons - Category N0. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above Asset Forfeiture (05) CI A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case 2.. 6. 3 .2 Petition re Arbitration (11) A6115 Petition to CompellCon?rmNacate Arbitration 2.. 6. 5 n! a :1 A6151 Writ-Administrative Mandamus 2.. 8. 2% Writ of Mandate (02) Cl A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2. Ci A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review 2 OtherJudicial Review (39) l:l A6150 Other Writ [Judicial Review 2Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) I: A6003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation 2.. 8. U) 5 Construction Defect (10) i:l A6007 Construction Defect 1.. 2.. 3. to C'a'ms Mass A6006 Claims involving Mass Tort 1.. 2.. 8. .3: Securities Litigation (28) A6035 Securities Litigation Case 1.. 2.. 8. (U 2 Toxic Tort . . Environmental (30) I: A6036 Toxic TortlEnVIronmentaI 1A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only) 1.. 2.. 5.. 8. I: A6141 Sister State Judgment 2.. 9. El A6160 Abstract ofJudgment 2.. 6. . . . 3, Enforcement I: A6107 Confessmn of Judgment (non-domestic relations) 2.. 9. .2 OfJUdgment (20) A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2.. 8. '5 A6114 PetitionlCerti?cate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2.. 8. CI A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case 2.. 8.. 9. RICO (27) A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case 1.. 2.. 8. '3 8 CI A6030 Declaratory Relief Only 1-. 2-. 3- OtherComplaints A6040 lnjunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment) 2.. 8. . (Not Spec'?ed (42) A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-torUnon-complex) 1.. 2.. 8. 0 CI A5000 Other Civil Complaint (non?tortlnon-complex) 1.. 2., 8. I l-wl Partnersmp C?rp?rati?n I: A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case 2.. 8. Governance (21) ,rv A6121 Civil Harassment 2,3,9. CI A6123 Workplace Harassment 2.. 3.. 9. Other Petitions A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case 2.. 3., 9. (Not Speci?sed Above) A6190 Election Contest 2. 4 I A6110 Petition for Change of Name 2.. 7. If A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law 2., 3.. 4.. 8. A6100 Other Civil Petition 2.. 9. LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 of4 I SHORTTITLE: LUMANLAN-DOMINGO vs . ROSENBERG - CASE NUMBER Item Ill. Statement of Location: Enter the address, of the accident, party?s residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in Item Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected. ADDRESS: - - REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown PaCl fl coas surgl cal center under Column for the type of action that you have selected for 3 7 2 0 Lomi ta Boul evard this case. C11. [321: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: Torrance CA 90505 Item IV. Declaration of Assignment declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly ?led for assignment to the Stanley Mos courthouse in the Central District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., 392 et seq., and Local Rule 2.0, subds. and Dated:Nov. 12, 2014 MM (SIGNATURE OF PARTY) 0 LOUANNE MAS RY PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READYTO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition. 2 If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-O10. 4 Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 03/11). .01 Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived. 6. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons. 7. 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. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4