. Perrin F. Disner SBN 257586 LAW OFFICES PERRIN 4630 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 105 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 Tel: (310) 742?7944 Fax: (888)544-5154 pdisner@disnerlaw. com Attorneys for Plaintiffs . DISNER 1511.. a . Sugariar ?our: Qalimmia oumy of Les Angsles OCT 2 3 2017 Sherri B. Carter, Exe,utive Officer/Clerk By Deputy Nancy Alvarez SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EMILY ELSON, STACY I-IAAVISTO, LORETTA OAKES, MICHELLE LANUM, JULIA LEFEBVRE, SUE GRLICKY, TILLY DORENKAMP, DINA SALAS, ARLENE RODRIGUEZ, JERRY GAINES, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, VS. ASHLEY BLACK, an individual, ASHLEY DIANA BLACK INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, ADB INTERESTS LLC, a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. 50680843 CASE NO. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FALSE ADVERTISING (CAL. CIV. CODE 1770) 2. STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY DESIGN DEFECT 3. STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN 4. NEGLIGENCE 5. NEGLIGENCE PER SE 6. GROSS NEGLIGENCE 7. RECKLESS MISCONDUCT 8. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 9. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY: FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE 10. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY: MERCHANTIBILITY 11. FRAUD 12. DEFAMATION l3. INTENTIONAL INF LICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS l4. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS. PROF. CODE 17200 et seq.) 15. FALSE ADVERTISING (CAL. BUS. -. PROF. CODE 17500 et seq.) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BC680843 I RECEIPT CCH451233095 DHTE PQID. PRVMENT: $1,435.08 RECEIVED: CHECK: CQSH: 84:8? $a=00 $agna $1,435.00 .. .91. J. (4.1 .. 1 .v 11-1 a Plaintiffs Emily Elson, Stacy Haavisto, Loretta Oakes, Michelle Lanum, Julia Lefebvre, Sue Grlicky, Tilly Dorenkamp, Dina Salas, Arlene Rodriguez, and Jerry Gaines (?Plaintiffs?) on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this action for injunctive relief and for damages under the laws of the State of California. I. INTRODUCTION 1. Defendants Ashley Black (?Black?), Ashley Diana Black International Holdings, LLC, Adb Interests, LLC, and DOES 1-100 (collectively ?Defendants?) manufacture, test, market, endorse, distribute and/or sell a putative medical device called ?FasciaBlaster? which not only did and does fail to deliver the aesthetic results stridently guaranteed by Defendants? false and deceptive advertising, but A which moreover did and does cause a wide array of physical injuries exempli?ed by the experiences of the Plaintiffs, running the gamut from simply worsening the aesthetic conditions which the device is supposed to improve, to far more severe harms such as extreme hormonal instability, stroke, and others described herein. Furthermore, when some of the Plaintiffs justifiably discussed their dangerous and scary FasciaBlaster experiences within Intemet social media forums, hoping to ?nd answers and to help minimize the risks to others, Defendants responded with censorship and a vicious, vindictive campaign of orchestrated defamation, harassment, cyber?bullying, intentional in?iction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution. 2. Currently selling for $89, the FasciaBlaster is ostensibly a massage 'stick? with handles on both ends and a set of hard plastic claws] protruding from Various versions of the device, differing mainly in size, are advertised for use on different parts of the body, e.g. ?FaceBlaster,? however all versions have the central 'claw? features in common, and all are marketed as Operating on roughly the (footnote continued) -2- the middle. Its damage is done when a user follows Defendants? marketing and instructional materials? direction: ?rst, to heat up the target area of the body e.g. in a sauna, then to strenuously, painfully rake2 the claws over one?s heated skin. Defendants direct users to 'blast? at a pain level of ?7 out of 10? in pursuit of a laundry list of exciting results promised by Defendants, including cellulite reduction, improved skin tone and muscle de?nition, and other health and beauty bene?ts. Some FasciaBlaster marketing assertions, e. g. that 'blasting? relieves of Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson?s disease, or that it is ?completely safe for children!? are particularly galling. And of course, Defendants assert that said bene?ts are all the more likely when one also purchases from their line of approved FasciaBlaster accessories, including expensive skin creams and oils for use with the device. 3. In addition to the foregoing false advertising, Defendants did and do make deceptive public representations e. g. regarding US. Food and Drug Administration approval of the FasciaBlaster, regarding the scienti?c testing their devices have undergone, and regarding the academic and medical credentials of multiple agents and employees whom Defendants did and do feature prominently in asciaBlaster advertising and instructional materials. 4. On information and belief, Defendants have long known that FasciaBlaster can be dangerous, but instead of issuing a recall or ceasing to sell the devices, they have persevered in commerce largely indifferent to the harms the same principle via the same general type of usage, i.e. aggressive self-massage over targeted connective tissue. As such, to avoid confusion this Complaint refers to all versions of the device under the umbrella term ?FasciaBlaster? except where a distinction between versions may be pertinent for e.g. narrative purposes. 2 'Blasting? is the vernacular term Defendants use in their marketing and instructional materials, and which Plaintiffs adopt herein, as shorthand for the directed use of the FasciaBlaster. device did and will continue to cause. Instead of real accountability, Defendants occasionally make mere minor adjustments to their marketing or directions for use?presenting an air of authority while offering meaningless bromides such as - ?blast for 5 minutes instead of 10? and ?use less heat with the aforementioned deliberate and callous campaign of intimidation against their dissatis?ed and/or injured customers. 5. The named Plaintiffs, along with all others similarly situated, were taken in and victimized by Defendants? deceptive business practices. Each named Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, has suffered as a result of Defendants? negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and fraud in the manufacture, testing, marketing, endorsement, distribution, and sale of a dangerous device with directions for dangerous use coming from Defendants? medically unquali?ed and incompetent spokespeOple. For product liability purposes, the proposed Plaintiff class may be divided into subclasses based on the array of physical maladies attributable to FasciaBlaster which the various named Plaintiffs have suffered, as detailed herein. For example, Plaintiffs may ultimately seek to certify e.g. Subclass A consisting of individuals who have suffered endocrine problems; Subclass consisting of individuals who have suffered cardiovascular problems; Subclass consisting of individuals who have suffered digestive problems; Subclass consisting of individuals who have suffered neurological problems; Subclass consisting of individuals who have suffered problems; Subclass consisting of individuals who have suffered defamation, harassment, or cyber?bullying; and Subclass consisting of individuals who have suffered from aesthetic harms, e.g. the worsening of cellulite or Wrinkles after use of a FasciaBlaster purchased and/or used based on Defendants? aggressive representations that it would have precisely the opposite effect. This Court is asked to expeditiously and actively enforce the many laws at issue, in order both to provide redress for the physical injuries already suffered and to prevent countless such injuries from continuing to occur in the future. 11. JURISDICTION 3. Plaintiffs Elson and Haavisto are residents of Los Angeles County. 4. The Defendants include an individual?Ashley Black?who on information and belief resides in Los Angeles County, whom the Plaintiffs hereby sue in her personal capacity for acts and omissions by her (for both monetary and nonmonetary3 purposes) and because two other Defendants, corporations of which she is President, sole or controlling shareholder, or otherwise principal, qualify as her alter egos on information and belief, justifying the Court in piercing corporate veils. 5. Further, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants hereto because any Defendants which are not California residents are nevertheless subject to California?s long-arm statute by virtue of inter alia the fact that they avail themselves of the protection of California law in their commercial dealings in California?s marketplace, which dealings are ample and the subject of this lawsuit. Speci?cally, the Defendants advertise and promote use of their products to potential customers in California via e.g. the Internet, television, and in print, and sell their products in California via e. g. online purchase or mail-order. The foregoing constitutes well more than the minimum commercial contacts with California necessary to provide this Court with personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to ireman's Fund Ins. Co v. National Bank of Cooperatives, 103 F.3d 888, 893 (9th Cir. 1996) and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US. 310, 316 (1945). 3 Defendant Black relishes her status as a self?designated celebrity health ?guru,? providing her with personal, nonmonetary egocentric benefits subject to proof, above and beyond the personal and corporate financial rewards of her actions. ark-PARTIES DEFENDANTS 6. On information and belief, Defendant Ashley Black is an individual living in Manhattan Beach, California. On information and belief, Black is the President, CEO, principal, majority shareholder, or only shareholder of both Ashley Diana Black International Holdings, LLC and Adb Interests, LLC. On information and belief, there are grounds on which this Court may find that said corporations are Black?s alter egos, and pierce one or both corporate veils as appropriate to hold her personally liable for their acts and omissions. 7. Defendant Ashley Diana Black International Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered, on information and belief, in Pearland, Texas. On information and belief, ADBIH is a close corporation controlled by, and qualifying as an alter ego of, Defendant Ashley Black. On information and belief, ADBIH was incorporated to own/manage intellectual property, i.e. trademarks and patents pertaining to the device(s) known as asciaBlaster and assorted accessories for use therewith. Other than the foregoing corporate functions, the full and precise nature of relationship with the other Defendants is unknown at this time, and Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this description if necessary after discovery. 8. Defendant Adb Interests, LLC is a Texas limited liability company headquartered, on information and belief, in Pearland, Texas. On information and belief, ADBI is a close corporation controlled by, and qualifying as an alter ego of, Defendant Ashley Black. On information and belief, ADBI produces, promotes, and sells FasciaBlaster devices and the assorted accessories sold for use therewith; on information and belief, ADBI does business as ADB Innovations LLC for purposes of distributing the skin creams and oils. Other than the foregoing, the full and precise nature of relationship with the other in?: .. 1a! I . 1 11?1? 11Defendants is unknown at this time, and Plaintiffs Will seek leave of Court to amend this description if necessary after discovery. 9. At this time, the true names and capacities?individual, corporate, associate or otherwise?of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, Who thus sue said DOES by such fictitious designation until such time as Plaintiffs are adequately informed about them, including inter alia their respective degrees of and reasons for personal liability, to seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to include their true names. On information and belief, each of the DOE Defendants bears some degree of liability to Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, for the unlawful acts and omissions described herein. PLAINTIFFS 10. Each of the Plaintiffs named herein purchased and/or used FasciaBlaster, and between them they suffered a wide variety of severe harms therefrom as described herein. A. Emily Elson 11. Emily Elson (?Elson?), age 40, is an individual who resides in Los Angeles, California. Elson first purchased a FasciaBlaster device in or around March of 201 7 because she saw advertising?won social media website Facebook?e which touted the device?s ability to reduce cellulite. Elson then 'blasted? as directed by Defendants? marketing and instructional materials, i.e. raked the device over her heated skin, all over her body except for her head, neck, and face, approximately once per week for a mere four or ?ve weeks, before stopping when a host of physical ailments began to arise. 12. Elson has been and is planning to undergo arti?cial insemination. As of early 2017, in light of her teaching schedule she planned to undergo the procedure in June or July of 201 7 (in order that her maternity leave at the end of the Spring 2018 semester would lead into her Summer break, allowing her to devote maximum time to infant care and bonding) without unduly delaying the attempt beyond the already fraught, well-known 40-years? benchmark. According to ample research (subject to proof), after 40 years of age, women ?nd e.g. fertilization more dif?cult to achieve, egg quality degraded, egg numbers reduced, and that the risk of birth defects increases signi?cantly. In order to maximize her odds of conceiving a healthy baby, Elson diligently underwent regular testing to monitor her reproductive hormone levels, including inter alia Follicle-Stimulating Hormone and Luteinizing Hormone Progesterone, and Estrogen. Blood tests taken shortly before she began 'blasting? showed-all of the foregoing hormones within better-than-average ranges. Prior to the events described herein, Elson had last undergone a test for Anti- Mullerian Hormone which indicates 'ovarian age,? i.e. overall ?tness for fertilization) at age 38, at which time her AMH levels were optimal. . 13. After 'blasting? for only a short period in or around March of 2017, Elson became very ill. She is a carrier of the Epstein-Barr virus, and had successfully managed that condition with inter other natural supplements, keeping 'flare ups? at bay for approximately two years before she began 'blasting.? Immediately after 'blasting,? however, she experienced an abrupt, aggressive and pain?il ?are up of Epstein-Barr virus persisting to the date hereof. On information and belief, 'blasting? released and reactivated dormant virus cells which had previously been trapped benignly within e.g. subcutaneous fat cells, a conclusion which Elson and multiple health practitioners later reached after inter alia learning about other FasciaBlaster users? having had the same experience with cases of 'reactivated? Epstein-Barr, Shingles, Lyme disease, etc. 14. In addition to the foregoing, after ?blasting? Elson began to experience intense menstrual and other unusual hormonal side-effects, different in nature and severity than any variations she had previously experienced. Her next round of reproductive hormone laboratory testing, undertaken within 6 weeks after -8- 'blasting,? revealed dramatic changes compared to the preceding test results, well beyond typical fluctuations: her FSH and LH levels had roughly doubled, while her Progesterone level dropped precipitously. Her Estrogen levels swung wildly, I dropping at ?rst before spiking well above February levels. Further, her AMI-I level had plummeted well below expectations, suddenly indicating ?compromised fertility.? As any aspiring mother would be under these circumstances, Elson was emotionally devastated4 by these results. 15. Beyond the foregoing illnesses, pain, hormonal swings, and emotional distress Elson suffered as a result of her 'blasting,? the appearance of cellulite which she had sought to reduce instead became?and remains?signi?cantly more conspicuous. B. Stacy Haavisto 16. Stacy Haavisto (?Haavisto?) is an individual who lives in Los Angeles, California. She uses Facebook daily, and was subject to aggressive targeted FasciaBlaster advertising thereon. Desiring to reduce cellulite and lose weight, she gave in to the targeted ads and purchased her ?rst FasciaBlaster in or around April of 2016. She began 'blasting? approximately ?ve times per week for approximately three months, then more sporadically until ceasing to 'blast? in& zgrf?prg-l bf 2017. She ultimately spent roughly $500 on various FasciaBlaster ?MarL devices and accessories. 4 Elson?s low AMH level was especially upsetting because, ordinarily, AMH levels only ever decrease over time; significant AMH increases are extremely rare. Elson was thus very fortunate when, after 10+ weeks of depression and anxiety following her ?compromised fertility? result, her next AMH test?between four and ?ve months after she had ceased 'blasting? once and for all?showed surprising improvement. Although AMH decrease between ages 38 and 40 is normal, Elson attributes the circumstance to the asciaBlaster on information and belief because the significant AMH increase, months later, is extraordinarily unusual. 17. From the beginning, 'blasting? would cause Haavisto to feel foggy? headed, lethargic, and physically fatigued. She grew more and more ill, suffering constipation, Irritable Bowel gas pains, heart palpitations, insomnia, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, vertigo, and severe headaches every day upon waking. Adding insult to injury, 'blasting? caused her to gain 13 pounds, and she grew so in?amed and bloated that she appeared to have gained 30 pounds. 18. The foregoing ?nally made Haavisto cease 'blasting? in July 2016, and forced her to spend the next three months with drastic dietary and other lifestyle changes through October of 2016. Her aggressive new health regimen caused her to lose 36 pounds, and her skin hung loose off of her body, so she began 'blasting? again in an attempt to firm herself back up. Without any other change to her lifestyle besides the renewed 'blasting? routine, Haavisto regained eight pounds. 19. In January of 2017, Haavisto Was suffering of severe hormonal ?uctuation, including hair loss and loss of collagen in her face. Based on Defendants? assertions that FasciaBlaster simply has no hormonal impact, and in light of conversations in a Facebook discussion group (which Defendants carefully monitor and control) attributing Haavisto?s to 'breast implant issues?, she needlessly had her breast implants surgically removed on January 31. Nevertheless, in March of 201 7, Haavisto?s hormonal were explained by a formal diagnosis of Adrenal Fatigue, which her physician found totally puzzling due to Haavisto?s age and healthy lifestyles. 20. Moreover, by March her cellulite had returned tenfold to her thighs. ?Blasting? also left 'rake marks? on her thighs and calves, and dangerous 5 Haavisto?s doctor expressly confessed to being confused by the patient?s condition, before ultimately attributing it to ?toxic overload.? Here, FasciaBlaster?s high content of Bisphenol A is worthy of note. $9 Para. 86, in?a. i-10- in?ammation; to gauge the latter, Haavisto underwent a C-Reactive Protein blood test. CRP level of 1 is normal. Haavisto?s blood test showed her CRP level at 8, very dangerously high. . 21. As of October 2017, the sustained ramifications of Haavisto?s 'blasting? include Oxidative Stress, a severely dangerous condition affecting the body's ability to remove toxins and repair cell damage which studies have connected to an array of terrible ailments, including inter alia Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, heart failure, chronic fatigue and depression. Haavisto also now suffers Metabolic attributable to 'blasting,? increasing her risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. She also continues to chronically suffer brain fog, insomnia, stiff neck, and headaches. 22. Haavisto came forward and wrote about the foregoing dangerous and scary experiences in a public FasciaBlaster discussion group on Facebook. Defendants removed her comments and kicked her out of the group, and thereafter retaliated against her by harassing, intimidating, cyber?bullying and defaming her, and on information and belief, by soliciting third parties to harass, intimidate, cyber-bully and defame her, as well. The latter conduct included inter alia overtly encouraging Defendants? more loyal Facebook followers to attack Haavisto e.g. by leaving false negative reviews of her own bUsinesses? Facebook pages, and by targeting her with groundless accusations to the authorities, as exempli?ed by a public Facebook post on September 7, 2017, to wit: Everyone. Let's report Dari, Julie L, Veronica Verona, Stacy Havisto [sic], Danielle Reins, Tammy Wike, and everyone else in their hate group to the FTC, FDA, FBI, the DEA, and their local Police Stations. Let's look up their businesses and leave 1 star reviews. Let's make sure everyone knows the truth about how hateful they are and all ofthe shadiness. You don't have to have been personally injured by them. If you know anyone who has spent anytime [sic] reading their lies then you have been injured -11- (permanently). You can't get that part of your life back. I'll make it easy for everyone. I'll create a copy/paste list of things they have done: -Harrassment [sic] -Cyber Bullying ?Extortion -Tortuous [sic] Interference -Defamation ?Product Libel -Hate Crimes -Defrauding the Government (abuse of gov systems) You can do it anonymously. Just crop out your face. Don't worry about negative repercussions. There is nothing they can do. We need to do this in order to get the truth out and take them down. Come on everyone, let's do I will send separate e-mails to everyone with guidance from "you know who" The ?foregoing was posted publicly by a putative Facebook user named Sarah Minow, although Ms. Minow?s personal Facebook page appears to be fake6. On information and belief, Defendant Black herself created this 'shill? Facebook pro?le in order to post the foregoing 'call to arms,? and the allusion therein to ?you know who? refers to Defendant Black. 23. All told, on information and belief Haavisto?s expenses in connection with using FasciaBlaster and dealing with its aftermath exceeded $10,000. 6 Ms. Minow?s Facebook page displays no photos, no friends, no posts, and no information of any kind, save for two telling details: under the heading ?Groups? Ms. Minow discloses only that she is a member of ?FasciaBlasters Of?cial Open Forum?, and (ii) under the heading ?Contact Information? the sole Ms. Minow mysteriously seems to have misspelled her own name. -12- F..- L. . 7-1 '50Loretta Oakes 24. Loretta Oakes (?Oakes?) is an individual who resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. After conducting ample research about cellulite reduction, in or around September of 2016 Oakes purchased the standard FasciaBlaster device. In or around November of 2016, she purchased another version, the ?Mini In or around February 2017, she purchased yet another version, the ?Faceblaster,? along with multiple creams and oils marketed by Defendant for use with the devices. Oakes ?blasted? as directed in Defendants? marketing and instructional materials, exacerbating a peripheral neuropathy condition such that she then suffered near- constant tingling in her feet and sometimes too much pain to walk, including as recently as within the last month. She was bedridden from November 2016 through January 2017, other than for doctor appointments. 1 25. Oakes?s 'blasting? caused severe bruising which has lingered as hemosiderin staining on her legs for over six months since she ceased 'blasting? in approximately March of 2017. Further, by disrupting the tissue connecting skin to muscle, 'blasting? has turned the skin on her legs and stomach cr?pey, i.e. loose and wrinkled worse than her elderly mother?s skin. 26. On information and belief, other harms attributable to 'blasting? which Oakes has suffered include depression (with suicidal ideation), anxiety, nausea, panic attacks, and lightheadedness, at least one incident of which caused her to lose consciousness and collapse. Even after she stopped 'blasting,? Oakes?s depression and anxiety have persisted due to personal attacks and falsehoods leveled against her on social media by Defendant Ashley Black, and by others defaming and harassing Oakes at Black's behest, on information and belief. 27. Oakes has spent several thousands of dollars on doctor visits, pain management, and a variety of expensive skin treatments in attempts to repair the damage wrought by FasciaBlaster. -13- 10 11 12 13 14 C. Michelle Lanum 28. Michelle Lanum (?Lanum?) is an individual who resides in Tampa, Florida. Lanum is pursuing her in from Kaiser University, with focus on the mind-body connection: When an acquaintance told her about FasciaBlaster, Lanum looked into it and decided it would be a perfect subject for study in connection with her degree, and she also saw an opportunity to reduce her own scarring from a caesarian section several years earlier. Lanum purchased multiple FasciaBlaster devices in November of 2016 and began ?blasting? as directed. 29. When it came to her attention that Defendants were conducting a putative ?clinical trial? for the device at the Applied Science'& Performance Institute right in her own neighborhood, Lanum jumped at the opportunity 7 to be able to observe the study for academic purposes, and to participate for her own aesthetic reasons. She participated in putative clinical trial of the FasciaBlaster from December 10, 2016 through March 10, 2017. i 30. Commencing with Lanum?s participation in the putative clinical trial, she became severely ill due to 'blasting,? on information and belief. Her included nausea, vomiting, migraines, neck and shoulder pain, dizziness, and severe gastrointestinal distress alternating between prolonged and painful constipation to violent diarrhea. Lanum quickly lost 16 pounds, then three more pounds. She regularly communicated these experiences to putative clinical trial ?researcher? Kathleen Stross, who repeatedly asserted that any notions of a connection between Lanum?s and the 'blasting? were refuted by Lanum?s regular blood testing results and other data the putative study was purportedly gathering. On information and belief, the foregoing was an outright falsehood, and contrary to Defendants? repeated promises to return study participants? medical test results to them, Defendants and the putative researchers have still not done so, -14- ignoring multiple requests by Lanum and others. 31. Continued 'blasting? brought out severe varicose and spider veins on Lanum?s legs?which had not previously been apparent, and caused an increase in the appearance of cellulite. When Lanum and multiple other participants in the putative clinical trial mentioned the appearance of new varicose veins, the putative researchers explicitly denied that there was any connection to 'blasting,? then later asserted that the varicose veins might get worse but would ultimately disappear. 32. More than six months after terminating her use of the FasciaBlaster, Lanum?s legs still exhibit varicose veins, rake marks, and cr?pey skin, none of which had been present before 'blasting.? Lanum continues to suffer semi-regular bouts of dizziness, nausea, tinnitus, sciatica, knee problems, and nerve pain and tingling radiating down through her shoulders and arms, all of which on information and belief are results of nerve damage attributable to her 'blasting? over six months ago. Lanum has been prescribed and is currently undergoing a course of physical therapy to address her persistent nerve pain, which she and her physical therapist hope will also curtail her frightening dizziness and tingling in her arms. 33. In Lanum?s judgment based on her personal academic background and experience, she found the putative researchers? behaviors to be highly erratic, their. methods unprofessional, and the putative clinical trial to be unscientific and improper. Further, Lanum learned that Bart Jameson?one of the putative researchers whom Defendants? video(s) had referred to as ?Doctor Bart??is, in fact, not a doctor. When Lanum would ask procedural questions of the putative researchers, e.g. for the bene?t of her own research, their replies revealed shocking unfamiliarity 'with the scientific process, generally. In one notable instance, Lanum found that she had to explain to Jameson what a ?hypothesis? is, and that it ordinarily comes before an experiment, not after. -15- 34. ?Blasting? caused Lanum to personally re-experience7 prior trauma, which went straight to her purpose in studying the FasciaBlaster, and she braved her own restlessness, and depression?for the bene?t of her research. When she questioned Stross about what the study?s Institutional Review Board had authorized, however, Stross provided no answer, and eventually stopped responding to Lanum?s voi'cemails, emails, and Facebook messages. On information and belief, the putative clinical trial was in fact never supervised by any IRB, contravening FDA regulations for any study with human participants, in addition to such further administrative ?aws and abuses as Plaintiffs may discover in the course of litigation, at which time they may seek leave to amend this Complaint to reflect same. 35. Defendants? putative clinical trial?s physical impact on Lanum was so debilitating that it forced her to drop out of a required graduate school class?Cross- Cultural Methods of Tests and Measurements?which then cost her $3,600 to retake the following semester. Adding insult to injury, plus more injury, due to the ASPI study?s countless procedural and administrative flaws, Lanum was subsequently unable to use her experience therein for the bene?t of her doctoral dissertation, as had been her aim all along. This wasted time and effort will now require her to extend the time for her dissertation research, at the cost of an additional $6,600 in tuition for the extra semester. Finally, treatment measures to repair the damage wrought by Lanum?s FasciaBlaster experience have cost over $600 to date, on information and belief, and she expects that she may ultimately require costly plastic surgery if her currently ongoing treatments ultimately prove 7 'Re-experience? is the clinical terminology associated with the phenomenon whereby e.g. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder patients feel their previous trauma all over again, as though it were? happening in the present. -16; ?43. ineffective. D. Julia Lefebvre 36. Julia Lefebvre (?Lefebvre?) is an individual who resides in Hiram, Maine. Lefebvre is an independent contractor performing background checks and employee and renter screenings. Lefebvre and her husband booked a cruise for November 2016 in order to renew their marriage vows, in preparation for which Lefebvre researched ?cellulite reduction? on the Internet in order to look her best in bathing suit or short skirt for her romantic vacation. Her research caused acebook?s advertising algorithm to begin targeting her with FasciaBlaster ads, which then led her to the FasciaBlaster website, Defendants? promotional videos, and public Internet forums pOpulated by 90,000+ putative satis?ed customers, wherein Lefebvre noted a lack of any negative feedback whatsoever. Sh'e purchased FasciaBlaster in September 2016 and began ?blasting? ?ve times per week. 37. Though Lefebvre had purchased FasciaBlaster only to reduce cellulite on her thighs, Defendants? marketing promises led her to also ?blast? her face, neck, arms, stomach, back and buttocks regularly. Before long her thighs, stomach, back and arms began to show severe bruising, but she carried on 'blasting? based on Defendants? admonition that results would be ?worse before better!? Lefebvre followed Defendants? instructions and encouragement to the effect that her ?blasting? build up to a pain level of?seven out of 10,? that she ?blast down to the bone,? and that ?violent blasting does a body good.? Lefebvre ceased blasting in the last week of October 2016, in order that her accumulated bruises would have time to fade away before her cruise, but the bruises simply changed color and remained as ugly hemosiderin stains all over her 'blast? areas. To make matters worse, the appearance of cellulite on her thighs had signi?cantly worsened. The discoloration and cellulite made her too self-conscious to wear shorts, bikini, or a short skirt, thus ruining what was supposed to be a romantic vacation. -17- 1? 38. Notwithstanding the foregoing, on the basis of Defendants worse before better? mantra, Lefebvre continued 'blasting? five times per week hOping for improvement before another cruise, this one for her Whole family, scheduled for January 2017. Then on December 23,2016, while driving home from a shopping trip to the mall, Lefebvre was-overcome with'severe dizziness, her ?eld of vision narrowed, and her hearing muf?ed; it felt like a heart attack, or severe panic attacks, the likes of which she had never experienced before. She quickly pulled off the road and phoned her children, who had to come get her. A few days later, she had the . same experience again, this time in the middle of ?blasting.? On January 23, 2017, Lefebvre saw stars and collapsed to the ?oor while 'blasting,? and lay on the floor unable to speak or move for three to five terrifying minutes, her body twitching and convulsing involuntarily. When her husband came home, he took her to the emergency room, where a physician told her that she may have triggered the episode by overheating and overstimulating her vagus nerve, i.e. Vasovagal Sync0pe, which 'clearly would have been a consequence of 'blasting.? Lefebvre subsequently continued blasting, but did so more gently and with less heat applied to her abdomen in order to avoid a reSponse from her vagus nerve. 39. Lefebvre continued to suffer debilitating panic attacks multiple times per week until shortly after she ceased 'blasting? in May 2017. Her last such attack was in June, but she felt compelled to refrain from driving her car between January and August of 2017, other than a handful of short trips alone to the market, for fear of an accident. These attacks understandably affected her ability to work and engage with her family and others, constituting a severe impact on her quality of life 8 On information and belief, this and subsequent similar episodes were not panic attacks, but Vasovagal Syncope, however the Complaint refers to them as panic attacks for clarity?s sake to convey the abruptly incapacitating pain, anxiety, weakness, and loss of physical control. -18- ?17. -.: -.-13.1.2generally. 40. Beginning in January 2017, Lefebvre noticed newly rapid aging in her face, including dramatic deepening of the so-called 'marionette lines.? Since then she has spent over $4,000 on collagen treatments and supplements, laser therapy, microcurrent, microneedling, and other reparative measures to try to get her face back to its pre-?blasted? state. Furthermore, oVer three months after she ceased 'blasting,? Lefebvre?s legs still have hemosiderin stains, rake marks, and worse cellulite than they exhibited a year ago. 41. Lefebvre has been subject to defamation, harassment, intimidation and cyber-bullying after she honestly relayed her experiences in e. g. the ?Master Blaster? group on Facebook, including inter alia being mentioned in a Facebook group post on September 7, 2017 which explicitly sought to incite group members to inter alia attack Lefebvre?s business with false negative online reviews. On information and belief, the putative Facebook user ?Sarah Minow? who posted said incitement was in fact a fake 'shill? pro?le created and wielded by Defendant Black, herself, or at her behest. Likewise, putative Facebook user ?Georgia Peach? falsely asserted that Lefebvre has committed fraud. On information and belief, ?Georgia Peach? is also a shill pro?le created and wielded by Defend-ant Black. E. Sue Grlicky 42. Sue Grlicky (?Grlicky?) is an individual who resides in Brooklyn, Ohio. A 52 year-old of?ce manager for a chemical company, Grlicky was in good health overall, but in the Spring of 201 7she was suffering from lower back pain in her psoas muscle. She undertook research on the subject via Google, which on information and belief prompted acebook to target her with an ad for FasciaBlaster. Grlicky then assiduously researched FasciaBlaster over the course of four weeks?she joined the ?Ashley Black Guru? Facebook discussion group, reviewed over a hundred product reviews therein, watched numerous promotional -19- and instructional videos, and purchased and read Defendant Black?s book, T_he Cellulite Myth: It?s Not Fat, It?s Fascia, cover to cover?before purchasing the device and accessories in April of 2017. She commenced using it immediately, targeting her lower back, shoulders, neck, scalp, abdomen, buttocks, and legs (inner, outer, front, and back), for approximately one minute per target area, approximately ?ve times per week after a hot bath. 43. Within her first week of 'blasting? Grlicky began to experience severe nausea, headaches, body aches, fatigue, and depression. She wrote to Black about her via Facebook, to which the latter responded that ?detox can really be rough [it?s] no fun but it?s a necessary, TEMPORARY evil that is needed to release all the gunk that?s keeping your body from functioning at 100%.? Grlicky then took a break from 'blasting? for 2?3 days, then resumed 'blasting? as before, but more gently and for shorter duration, and her improved in severity by the end of her second week, but did not go away. 44. During her third week of ?blasting,? Grlicky stumbled upon another acebook discussion group, this one dedicated to asciaBlaster?s adverse effects, which caused her to draw the connection that her persistent illness was more than the mere beneficial ?detoxification? that Black had asserted it was, so Grlicky then ceased 'blasting.? Shortly thereafter, she experienced the abrupt onset of a stabbing, throbbing, burning neck and shoulder pain. This new was severe, constant, and scary. Over the following few weeks Grlicky sought treatment from a chiropractor and four different massage therapists?one of whom told her that her neck and shoulder area was ?highly in?amed??until one day a tingling began to radiate down her right arm. Her chiropractor diagnosed her with a pinched nerve, and attempted a special chiropractic adjustment for that diagnosis, but it accomplished nothing. Desperate and afraid, Grlicky went to the Cleveland Clinic in early July, where she was referred to a neurologist who con?rmed the pinched nerve -20- diagnosis. Grlicky underwent MRIs and x-rays, and the neurologist prescribed neuropathic medication Gabapentin and pain medication Tramadol. This course of treatment improved Grlicky?s pain but did not ?x it, and treatment efforts are ongoing. 45. While at work on July 17, Grlicky felt a sudden mild pain in her hip, which within 15 minutes became excruciating, whereupon she could not walk or stand. A call to 91 1 brought an ambulance to take Grlicky to the Cleveland Clinic Emergency Room, where she was subjected to CT scans, more x-rays, blood tests, etc. ER personnel asked her ?were you in some kind of accident?? she replied, ?why?? She was then told that a burst blood vessel had caused a massive hematoma and internal bleeding in her pelvic region (left side). After trying and failing to ?nd any exterior bruising in the area, the ER doctor told Grlicky that ?this is highly unusual, not something we see often [other than after e.g. a violent collision].? Grlicky was admitted to the hospital for an overnight stay in order for doctors to stOp her internal bleeding. 46. Since the foregoing hospital stay, Grlicky has had appointments with her primary doctor, a hematologist, physical and massage therapists, and a holistic practitioner. Nonetheless, Grlicky still experiences occasional pain on the left side of her pelvis, causing her to suffer extreme anxiety to ever be alone, lest her blood vessel burst again, or worse. Her primary doctor concluded that this entire episode was attributable to Grlicky?s 'blasting,? and eXplicitly stated ?you easily could have died from internal bleeding. You should sue those pe0ple [Defendants].? Grlicky also now suffers great anxiety about the possibility of losing her job, having had to take off work to some degree roughly every week since her pinched nerve for medical or therapeutic appointments, or on occasions when her pain is unbearable. 47. . All of Grlicky?s medical treatment described herein?including trips to the Cleveland Clinic, ER, ambulance, chiropractor, physical and massage therapists, -21- J. 371? 71 3111-" T. .9 ..-1 . .3. and holistic practitioner?came at a combined cost in excess of $23,800.08, of which Grlicky has paid $6,756.95 out of pocket, to date. F. Tilly Dorenkamp I 48. Tilly Dorenkamp (?Dorenkamp?) is an individual who resides in Pinellas Park, Florida. Dorenkamp is an artist with average yearly income from commissions of $20,000 $25,000 per year. She enjoyed excellent muscle tone due to attending Pilates classes roughly ?ve times per week for several years. On the recommendation of a friend, Dorenkamp purchased FasciaBlaster in October 2016 h0ping to relieve pain from ?bromyalgia and arthritis, and carefully adhered to the instructions provided in Defendants? YouTube videos. 49. Dorenkamp then learned about and opted to take part in putative clinical trial from December 2016 through March 2017. Per? the study protocols, five times per week she used a portable sauna device for 20 minutes, then 'bl?asted? for ?ve minutes per target area: her abdomen, and then the front, back, inside, and outside of each leg 20 minutes per leg in total). A month into the study she was given a FaceBlaster, and began 'blasting? her face and neck to reduce the effects of aging. As the putative clinical trial progressed, Dorenkamp complained numerous times that 'blasting?: caused severe nerve pain in her legs and knees; worsened the Restless Leg from which she suffered at night; and left her utterly exhausted and bedridden such that she could not perform any other physical activity on 'blasting? days. In the last few weeks of the putative clinical trial, Dorenkamp?s suffering was so severe that her Rheumatologist suggested she drop out. 50. During the putative clinical trial, an anxiety condition which Dorenkamp had previously managed for 20 years?with anti?anxiety medication Clonazepam (.5 mg)?suddenly worsened, and deveIOped into deep depression, causing her primary care physician to double her Clonazepam dosage and prescribe -22- .. - 7. 1m. \10extra half-dose of an additional anti-anxiety medication, Zoloft. Dorenkamp failed to draw a connection between her depression and the putative clinical trial until May of 2017. To date, her exacerbated anxiety condition gives her stress headaches almost every time she leaves the house, which was not the case before her asciaBlaster experience. She was prescribed yet another anti-anxiety medication, Buspirone (15mg), in early September of 2017. 51. After the putative clinical trial ended, Dorenkamp tried 'blasting? three more times. The third time, on May 9, 2017, abruptly brought on a severe thunderclap headache, and elevated her resting heart rate to 185 beats per minute (from her average resting heart rate of approximately 6.7 BPM), - necessitating an emergency room visit. Before this ER visit, Dorenkamp had managed a Tachycardia condition for 20 years with 50mg prescription of Atenolol. Following this ER visit, her cardiologist doubled her Atenolol dosage due to severely worsened heart palpitations, elevated pulse, and mitral valve prolapse diagnoses. The cardiologist also prescribed a nuclear stress test which Dorenkamp has yet to undergo because the entire $1,000 cost will have to come out of pocket. 52. Beyond her cardiological dif?culties, 'blasting? severely increased what had previously been quite minimal cellulite on Dorenkamp's legs; the skin now sags off of her lags, there is a conspicuous dent in her thigh, and her calf muscle atrophied to the point that she cannot see it and can barely feel it. 'Blasting? her face and neck has also caused severely sagging skin, dramatically accelerating the appearance of aging, notwithstanding that she was assiduously faithful to ASPI researchers? and YouTube video instructions at all times. 53. Before she began 'blasting,? on an average day Dorenkamp experienced a pain level of 3-4 (out of 10) from her ?bromyalgia and arthritis conditions. Since May of 2017, on an average day her pain level is 5-7 out of 10, notwithstanding her efforts to manage the pain with ibuprofen and powerful painkiller Tramadol (200mg). Her RLS condition has also worsened considerably, disrupting her sleep cycles morethan it ever had before. Dorenkamp has not been able to work on her art since December 2016, and as a result she has multiple commissions outstanding, harming her professional reputation. 54. Dorenkamp has been subject to defamation, harassment, intimidation, and cyber-bullying, constituting intentional in?iction of emotional distress by Defendants, and others on their behalf, in retaliation for her having honestly relayed her experiences in e. g. the ?Ashley Black Guru? group discussion page on acebook. Dorenkamp was also the victim of malicious prosecution in the form of a frivolous lawsuit against her by Defendants, which has been dismissed. Recently, at Defendants? behest and direction on information and belief, individuals9 supporting Defendants have sought to harass, embarrass, and intimidate Dorenkamp on Facebook by the unauthorized public posting of un?attering photos of her, and health-related records which, on information and belief, Defendants permitted to be publicized in violation of numerous statutes and regulations, e.g. HIPAA. 55. On information and belief, Dorenkamp?s FasciaBlaster use will have necessitated medical?and therapeutic treatments costing her more than $15,000. G. Dina Salas 56. Dina Salas (?Salas?) is an individual residing in Las Vegas, Nevada. Salas is 40 years old, has Multiple Sclerosis and in spite of a vegan diet and taking yoga classes three times per week, she was frustrated and embarrassed by cellulite on her thighs, knees and calves. In June of 2016, her cousin told her about FasciaBlaster. Salas purchased one, but did not begin using it until October or 9 The individuals in question undertook the described cyber?bul?lying for Defendants? bene?t i? that is, they are not in fact merely fake Facebook personae operated by Defendants themselves, as alleged herein. S_ee e_g_ Para. 94, infra. -24- November of 2016, and only approximately twice a week, and gently, because it was so painful. Salas saw no bene?cial results, only dramatic bruising, and stopped 'blasting? in or around December 2016. i 57. Notwithstanding that she had already stopped ?blasting,? Salas remained a member of the Defend?ants? ?FasciaBlasters? Facebook group, and in early 2017 on the basis of new success stories and compelling 'before and after? photos still crOpping up in her Facebook News Feed, she decided to give 'blasting? another try. This time her regimen entailed 'blasting? roughly every other day, and much more strenuously, as she was encouraged by Defendants and othersIO in the discussion group to do so at a pain level of 7 out of 10. Salas saw no positive results, only renewed, dark bruising. A few weeks after reinitiating her 'blasting,? as Salas?s enthusiasm began to wane yet again, in her Facebook News Feed she saw a video posted by Defendant Black with a caption? asserting that FasciaBlaster is effective at treating Parkinson?s disease and MS?both neurodegenerative conditions?by ?lessen[ing] lesions,? i.e. the scars on the brain and spinal cord which cause MS. Further research on Google then led Salas to a posting by Defendant(s) on social media '0 Notably, shortly after Salas had renewed her attention to the Facebook group, she received multiple Facebook friend requests from previously unknown individuals, who were then. enthusiastic FasciaBlaster cheerleaders, pushing and prodding Salas to keep up the aggressive 'blasting? every time she expressed any doubts. On information and belief, these individuals were either fake Facebook pro?les operated by Defendants, or paid motivators Operating at Defendants? behest; at one point in or around May 2017, Salas pointedly asked one of them if she were a paid ?motivator,? and the other pro?le immediately 'unfriended? Salas. Salas saw this video and its caption before she was summarily kicked out of Defendants? ?FasciaBlasters? Facebook group in June of 201 7. On information and belief, this claim pertaining to MS may have been removed since then, however not before Salas and others similarly situated relied on it. -25- website/application Instagram, claiming that FasciaBlaster is ?really helping with MS patients not only with but the lesions are lessening on the MRJS I've known for years that fascia work helps with After stumbling upon the foregoing social media posts, and then noticing more and more (putativelz) participants in the Facebook group who claimed to be treating MS with FasciaBlaster, Salas?s enthusiasm understandably skyrocketed, and She added her abdomen and back to her 'blasting? routine. 59. Approximately a month into her renewed 'blasting? routine, Salas began suffering an extraordinarily severe itchiness. It was so uniquely awful that it sent her to the emergency room and subsequently to a neurologist, who diagnosed her condition as chronic Pruritis. Far from a garden-variety scratchable itch, Salas experienced deep, torturously unyielding irritation everywhere throughout her body, literally from her toes to scalp, and particularly bad in her tongue and eyeballs. The maddening nerve pain deprived Salas of sleep and otherwiSe disrupted every aspect of her'life. 60. At the beginning of May, tortured by Pruritis, Salas quit 'blasting? for good. Months of 'blasting? did not cure Salas?s MS, nor improve it to even the slightest degree as Defendants claimed it would. All of that 'blasting? did, however, signi?cantly worsen her cellulite, and decorated her legs with a brand new network of spider veins, where she had previously had none. For the first time in decades, Salas experienced severe and painful oral Herpes outbreaks repeatedly since ?rst using the FasciaBlaster. She also gained 20 pounds since ?rst 'blasting,? attributable thereto on information and belief because she had made no other change ?2 On information and belief, some if not all of these individuals whom Salas saw extolling the virtues of 'blasting? for MS treatment were/are fake Facebook profiles or paid motivators. EE gg, Para. 94, infra. -26- her vegan, yoga-enthusiast lifestyle. 61. Along with the total failure to improve her MS in the slightest, her abrupt weightgain, brand new spider veins, resurgent Herpes outbreaks, and torturous unscratchable itching from head to toe, on information and belief Salas?s 'blasting? disrupted her hormonal levels, all of which combined to throw her into severe depression. 62. To date, the various medical treatments necessitated by Salas?s FasciaBlaster experiences add up to approximately $4,000 out of her pocket and several thousand more paid on her behalf in ?nancial assistance, on information and belief. This figure of course fails to account for e.g. the future cosmetic treatments required to fully repair all the damage wrought by Defendants? products and business practices. H. Arlene Rodriguez 63. Arlene Rodriguez (?Rodriguez?) is an individual residing in Hanford, California. She is a 38 year?old waitress. After seeing Defendants? advertising in her Facebook News Feed, she joined the Facebook ?FasciaBlasters? discussion group to research the product. Seeing no meaningfully negative reviews, and eager to get rid of cellulite on her thighs, she purchased the device in mid-November 2016 and in late November commenced 'blasting? her thighs, abdomen, and arms, for roughly five minutes in total, roughly three times per week in a very hot bath or shower. 64. Right away, Rodriguez would experience nausea, dizziness and I lightheadedness almost every time after 'blasting,? and frequently headaches. Beginning in mid-December, Rodriguez began experiencing burning body aches as well, which were sufficiently worrisome that she went to a doctor to be tested for Lupus, arthritis, etc., but the tests were negative. She combed the Facebook discussion group for feedback similar to her experiences from other users, and ?nding none, Rodriguez carried on ?blasting.? Even as the cellulite which motivated -27- her purchase was worsening substantially, Rodriguez continued ?blasting? in reliance on Defendant Black?s representations that increased appearance of cellulite is a temporary result of FasciaBlaster?s breaking up the fascia in ?layers,? and Defendants? famous, persistent refrain: ?worse before better!? 65. In mid- December, Rodriguez began experiencing unusual mood swings and increased anxiety, but failed to draw any connection to her 'blasting.? In or around February 2017 Rodriguez bought a second FasciaBlaster, the ?Mini 2? model, and extended her ?blasting? sessions to an average of seven minutes on the basis of enthusiastic encouragement and authoritative advice and promises made by Defendants (and other Facebook pro?les which, on information and belief, were either fake, or paid motivators) in Defendants? acebook discussion group. In 'or around March 2017, seeing her doctor about her unexplained persistent mood swings and increased anxiety, she was prescribed Zoloft (15mg). 66. In or around May of 2017, Rodriguez?s body aches grew so severe that at one point she was bedridden for two days, yet she persisted in 'blasting.? Not long thereafter, she happened upon a report about FasciaBlaster on the Facebook page of Goop?, a trendy lifestyle company. Among the public?s comments on the Goop? posting was a link to a Facebook group for dissatisfied FasciaBlaster users, providing Rodriguez?s ?rst inkling that the device might be remotely fallible; the user comments in this second acebook group constituted the first meaningfully negative reviews about FasciaBlaster which Rodriguez had seen, after roughly six months of participating in Defendants? own carefully monitored, controlled, 100% enthusiastically positive discussion group. Rodriguez stopped blasting at this point, and began to make more pointed and less positive inquiries in the Defendants? acebook discussion group. She was then kicked out of that group, and blocked from the ?Ashley Black Guru? Facebook page wherein she might otherwise have been able to comment about her experiences e.g. for the -23- bene?t of third parties. 67. Between a week and 10 days after Rodriguez ceased ?blasting,? she developed the beginnings of a strange rash on her lower back. After another week it had begun to spread, and it itched severely. Her doctoriinitially diagnosed the rash as an allergic reaction, and prescribed Loratidine (10mg). Another week or two later, the rash had spread like wild?re, all over Rodriguez?s thighs, back, sides, breasts, upper chest, and down her right arm. She returned'to the doctor, who inquired whether Rodriguez had traveled recently, or eaten anything exotic, or undertaken any other new experience or meaningful lifestyle change of any kind. The answer was no, and Rodriguez mentioned FasciaBlaster. Her doctor had never heard of it, so Rodriguez explained Defendants? 'blasting? theories, to which the. doctor expressly replied that there was ?a strong possibility? that FasciaBlaster had caused the rash, and prescribed a 10-day course of steroid Prednazone (5mg). 68. Rodriguez took her prescribed Prednazone for 10 days, during which the rash improved. Three days after the tenth day, however, the rash returned aggressively, even worse and more painful than it had been previously, and extremely (the fact?nder will undoubtedly ?nd photos thereof to be highly upsetting). Rodriguez went back to the doctor again, had tissue samples taken for biopsy, and was given a prescription for anti-fungal medication Terbina?ne (250mg) which she only took for a short time before receiving her biopsy results back with her diagnosis: chronic super?cial perivascular dermatitis, i.e. in?ammation of her blood vessels. In response, her doctor doubled the previous Prednazone prescription dosage (to 10mg) and tripled its duration (30 days), added prescriptions for Ranitidine (150mg) and Triamcinolone steroid cream to the menu, and advised Rodriguez to supplement all of the foregoing with Benadryl any time the itch grew too unbearable. All of the foregoing ?nally began to put the rash on the retreatdays, the doctor prescribed another 30 days of -29- .. . 1 half the previous Prednazone dosage (back down to 5mg), then another 30 days of 2 the next lowest available dosage (1mg) in order to wean Rodriguez off of it; the rash 3 is much improved as of the date hereof but, notably, it is not gone. 4 69. I During the Summer of 2017, temperatures in California?s Central . 5 Valley routinely exceeded 100 degrees. At that time, at the height of Rodriguez?s 6 extremely rash, she was obliged to wear long sleeved shirts and long pants 7 to cover it, rather than the tank tops and shorts or skirts most women to 8 wear on hundred?degree days. Obviously such clothes were highly uncomfortable, 9 and the predictably profuse sweating that resulted ramped up Rodriguez?s already 10 itchy discomfort into a painful burning sensation. On two occasions, between June 11 and July, she was sent home early from her waitressing job because constantly- 12 scratching waitresses are not good for business. She lost wages and tips totaling 13? $300 or more as a result. 0 14 70. As of the date hereof, almost 11 months since she ?rst 'blasted,? 15 Rodriguez?s cellulite remains worse than it was before, and has Spread from her 16 thighs to her buttocks, where it had not appeared previously. Her inner thighs bear 17 distinct, rake-marks (matching the dimensions of the FasciaBlaster claws), 18 notwithstanding that roughly ?ve months have passed since she last raked them. 19 Rodriguez had minor spider veins on her outer knees beforenshe purchased 20 7 FasciaBlaster. As. of the date hereof, those spider veins are signi?cantly darker, 21 thicker, wider, and more than they were, and they have been joined by 22 brand new networks of spider veins above her knees, prominently on the 23 front of her thighs. - 24 1. Jerry Gaines 25 71. Jerry Gaines (?Gaines?) is an individual residing in Tampa, Florida. He 26 is the grandfather of Plaintiff Lanum. When the latter purchased multiple 2aFasciaBlaster devices in November of 2016 (se_e Para. 28, supra), she gave one to - .31. .-ur Gaines and told him to only use the device on his head and neck?pursuant to the ?migraine relief protocol? specified by Defendants? on their FasciaBlaster acebook ?page, and to emulate Defendants? online videos, photos and testimonials of subjects from a putative hair growth study?and on his abdomen as recommended by Defendant Black in other marketing and instructional materials. Gaines 'blasted? two to three times per week, for twenty minutes at a time in the shower or sauna, beginning in late November 2016, right up until he suffered a stroke in June 2017. Gaines suffered damage to cranial nerve no. 7, adversely affecting his speech and causing severe expressive aphasia. CT scan'results revealed ?loss of grey?white differentiation and cortical effacement in the left frontal cortex, in the left MCA [(middle cerebral artery)] distribution.? Another scan revealed ?left M2 [a segment of the with" diminished A third test, cerebral angiography, showed ?distal M2 occlusion.? A fourth test, brain MRI, showed ?acute left MCA territory infarct in the left frontal lobe a few areas of punctate restricted to fusion in the right frontal and parietal lobes.? 72. Following Gaines?s stroke, Lanum. found testimonials from dissatisfied FasciaBlaster users online, which made reference to the device?s dangerous tendency to release blood clots. Lanum brought the foregoing to the attention of Gaines and his physician, and the latter demanded that Gaines immediately cease all 'blasting?; speci?cally, his doctor expressly said ?throw that thing [FasciaBlaster] '33 away Since then, Gaines has had to undergo extensive Speech therapy and cognitive exercise programs, as well as physical'therapy and treatments to restore his neurological system, including multiple weeks at an expensive in-patient rehabilitation facility. Class Action Allegations 73. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and as a Class Action under the provisions of e.g. Cal. Civ. Code 1781, on behalf of all members ofa plaintiff Class de?ned as: all persons who have purchased and/or used FasciaBlaster, or who will have done so at some point prior to resolution of the Plaintiffs? claims herein. 74. Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of claimed Class members, but on information and belief, they number in the tens of thousands if not more. Due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, the claimed Class members are suf?ciently numerous and geographically dispersed throughout the US. so that the joinder of all claimed Class members is impracticable. 75. There is considerable commonality here among the claimed Class members in that each has purchased or used, or will have purchased or used, a dangerous FasciaBlaster device(s) prior to e.g. the implementation of any injunctive relief ordered as a result of this lawsuit. The various harms FasciaBlaster has wrought on each Plaintiff constitute further commonality between each Plaintiff and all claimed Class members who have suffered, or will suffer before ?this matter is resolved, the same or substantially similar'3 type(s) of physical and commercial injuries as any given Plaintiff(s); hopefully, many claimed Class members have been fortunate enough to avoid serious injury, but any individual who nevertheless has failed or will fail to achieve the 'blasting? results promised by Defendants ?nds commonality with the Plaintiffs regarding e. g. causes of action for false advertising, breaches of express and implied warranty, and fraud, if not also others. ?3 For example, Plaintiff Elson alleges that the Epstein-Barr virus which previously lay harmlessly dormant in her system was released and reawakened by 'blasting,? making Elson extremely ill. Para. l3, supra.) There is thus commonality between Elson and any putative Class member who also became ill after having a previously dormant virus reactivated by FasciaBlaster use; the possibility that the Class member?s speci?c virus might differ Shingles) does not inherently defeat the commonality of the Cause, nor the consequences, of its revival from prior dormancy. 76. Plaintiffs and claimed Class members have a common interest in determining the following: i I whether Defendants engaged in false or misleading advertising; whether FasciaBlaster caused the injuries suffered by users I thereof; whether acts and omissions by Defendants contributed to the injuries suffered by FasciaBlaster users; whether acts and omissions by Defendantswere negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, fraudulent, or any combination thereof; and that Plaintiffs and other members of the claimed Classes have been, or are substantially likely to be, damaged by Defendants? wrongful acts and/or omissions. 77. Plaintiffs? claims are typical of the claims of all Class members. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Plaintiffs are typical users of FasciaBlaster devices and accessories sold throughout the United States. Their interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other members of the Class. In addition, Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation. 78. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the plaintiff Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, potentially establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants and inconsistent remedies available toinjured Class members nationwide. 79. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Subclasses predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating to liability for actual, general, and punitive damages, and appropriateness of injunctive relief. 80. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and ef?cient adjudication of this controversy. Treatment as a class action will permit large numbers of similarly situated persons to adjudicate their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, ef?ciently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender. Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of claims by many Class members who could not afford individually to litigate the numerous claims such as are asserted in this Complaint. The plaintiff Class is readily ascertainable. Finally, this class action is not likely to present such dif?culties in management that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. Iv. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION FasciaBlaster Marketing 81. Defendants do Or did advertise FasciaBlaster through multiple media? avenues, including inter alia: website website Defendant Black?s book The Cellulite Myth: It?s Not Fat It?s Fascia; pervasive targeted'4 advertising, putatively instructional videos, and putatively open discussion forums on social media websites/applications including inter alia Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube; and by promotional interviews and other varieties of marketing tie-ins e. g. on the Today Show and EXTRA television programs, in Essence and Shape magazines, and on the much?ballyhooed lifestyle website . 82. Putatively instructional materials over 100 videos) and discussion? oriented forums multiple acebook discussion groups) created and/or- On information and belief, Defendants enjoy acebook?s top-of-the-line targeted advertising package, whereby Facebook?s algorithm communicates with a user?s web browser program to learn that e.g. she had previously run a Google search for ?cellulite,? causing Facebook to automatically place Defendants? ad prominently near the top of the user?s Facebook 'News Feed? the next time she scrolls through it. moderated by Defendants feature public representations asserting or purporting to reinforce assertions about the effectiveness of Defendants? products and techniques for their advertised purposes. Moreover, on information and belief Defendants did and do create and Operate shill fake) Facebook pro?les, and/or surreptitiously contract with third party 'motivators,? in order to give the false public impression that these are disinterested parties as they broadcast glowing third-party feedback and/or oppose, attack, and seek to undermine any negative third-party feedback. Finally, representations on product packaging also qualify as marketing. 83. All putatively ?informational? material disseminated by Defendants regarding FasciaBlaster, in any medium, has the underlying intent and effect of advertising FasciaBlaster products, accessories and techniques. On informatiOn and belief, most if not all of the foregoing relies on false and/Or deceptive claims pertaining to health bene?ts, aesthetic bene?ts, and the putatively scienti?c bases for such claims, including but not limited to false representations of the medical/academic quali?cations of individuals and regulatory agency support for the outcomes promised by the Defendants. 84. The following is a nonexhaustive list of Defendants? false and/or misleading representations about FasciaBla'ster?s health bene?ts, aesthetic bene?ts, the medical/academic quali?cations of Defendants? agents and employees, the scientific legitimacy of Defendants? putative clinical trial, and regulatory agency support for Defendants? commercial promises, inter alia: Defendants have stated that Fasci'aBlaster is Approved.? 0In fact, FasciaBlaster is merely registered with the FDA, as a Class 1 medical device (?massager?). Class 1 devices are considered low-risk and subject to the lowest degree of regulatory control. For example, dental ?oss is classi?ed as a Class 1 device. FasciaBlaster is not FDA approved for the myriad medical uses promoted by Defendants. Defendants claimed as far back as September 2016, if not earlier, that their products were subiect to ?clinical study? and ?double-blind scienti?c research.? ?In fact, on information and belief the only putatively scienti?c research was the putative clinical trial undertaken at from mid-December 2016 through mid-March 2017. Moreover, as noted supra by participant Plaintiffs, the study was dubiously scienti?c, was conducted without IRB oversight, violated HIPAA and FDA protocols, and was certainly not ?double?blind? because there was no control group versus test group, but rather simply 35 participants all doing the same 'blasting? and submitting their results. Contrary to innumerable prior representations by Defendant Black and others, an of?cer of Defendant ADBI recently admitted that there has been no genuine ?clinical? study. (0) Defendants have claimed and/or intentionally implied, inter alia: that Defendant Black is a Licensed Massage Therapist, scientist, and ?Inventor of the Year? nominee; that former spokesperson Dari Samia is a medical doctor; that spokesperson and putative researcher Bart Jameson is a doctor; and that spokesperson and putative researcher Kathleen Stross is a neuroscientist. ?In fact, on information and belief, none of these people possess the referenced quali?cations. Defendants have claimed that FasciaBlaster is 100% safe; on May 18, 2017, Defendant Black stated in a promotional video that no woman had reported injuries to her; as recently as August 31, 2017, Black stated ?[tlhere are no serious iniuries reports (sic) [wk investigate all claims.? ?In fact, on information and belief, thousands of FasciaBlaster users have experienced adverse effects from 'blasting.? According to an FDA Inspection Report, a minimum of 70 such users -36- reported their injuries directly to Defendants, and were systematically ignored. (S_ee_ Paras. 89-90, in?a.) On information and belief, anywhere between dozens and thousands of FasciaBlaSter users complained, or merely inquired, about adverse experiences from 'blasting? on e.g. social media forums, before Defendants censored or deleted their comments and questions, and banned them from further participation in said forums to prevent potential customers from seeing honest feedback of a negative nature. Plenty of these complaints were raised before May 18, 2017; on information and belief, Defendant Black has received numerous complaints dating back more than a year before she made this claim. Many reports were provided to Defendants pertaining to users whose injuries were serious enough to require emergency hospitalization, including multiple Plaintiffs herein and others similarly situated, and as explicitly noted in the FDA Inspection Report of which Black had full knowledge before publicly claiming otherwise on August 31, 2017. Defendants have claimed that FasciaBlaster use will not affect hormones and will not increase estrogen levels. ?1n fact, the experiences of multiple Plaintiffs and others similarly situated demonstrate the dramatic effects asciaBlaster use has wrought on their hormone levels, including extreme cramping, missed periods, unusual menstrual bleeding lasting up to 10 days), depression, anxiety, etc. Defendants did and/or do claim that FasciaBlaster reduces the appearance of varicose veins, and is ?100% effective? at treating cellulite, purportedly ?better, faster, and more affordable than [competing approaches to cellulite reduction] freezing lie. CoolSculpting?l or surgery leg. liposuctionl.? ?In fact, after 'blasting? -37- 00(3me multiple Plaintiffs experienced a marked increase in the appearance and severity of cellulite, varicose and spider veins, and these worsened conditiOns have persisted long after they ceased 'blasting,? six months later or more. Defendants did and/or do claim that FasciaBlaster erases lines and wrinkles. ?1n fact, ?blasting? worsened the lines and wrinkles of multiple Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. Defendants have claimed that bruising from FasciaBlaster is ?healthy, restorative, and cleansingH? and? that, at any rate, any such aesthetic side effects of any kind are only temporary and will improve with continued ?blasting? in keeping with Defendant Black?s oft? repeated refrain, ?worse before better ?In fact, notwithstanding faithful adherence to Defendants? instructions for use, multiple Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have had the following side effects persist through, and well after, prolonged ?blasting?: hemosiderin staining, cr?pe skin, loose skin, fallen face, persistent claw lines/rake marks, in?ammation, Oxidative stress, crepitus, weight gain, adrenal fatigue, thyroid disruption, hematoma, blood clot, burst blood vessel, hormonal changes, mood swings, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, Vasovagal Syncope, heart palpitations, dif?culty breathing, lightheadedness, vertigo, ?u-like nerve pain, joint pain, muscle pain, muscle spasms, headaches, numbness, chronic Pruritis, itching or burning sensations, rash, chronic perivascular dermatitis, hives, hair loss, viral outbreaks, chest pain, etc. Defendants? various websites and social media pro?les feature multiple sets of promising ?before and after? photos to demonstrate the results FasciaBlaster provides. 0 Subject to proof: many of the photos -33- are digitally altered, others appear to have been copied from various plastic surgery or liposuction websites, and on information and belief, including according to former FasciaBlaster spokesperson Dari Samia, at least one pair of pictures was taken mere moments apart, but with different lighting giving them the appearance of improvement from one to the next. On information and belief, at least one pair of photos feature a woman who was eight-months pregnant in the 'before? photo, then four or five months postpartum in the 'after,? which Defendants fail to disclose in presenting them as indicative of successful 'blasting?. Fasc?iablaster?s Chemical Composition 85. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that FasciaBlaster has been and is dangerous and defective in its design, and unfit to be used for any purpose by any person, and that Defendants have been on actual and constructive notice of said unfitness at all relevant times. 86. On information and belief, the chemical composition of the plastic in a FasciaBlaster device includes more than 40% BiSphenol A which can both mimic and antagonize estrogen in the body. Multiple scientific studies link EPA to endocrine system disruption, dating as far back as 1997. Studies have linked xenoestrogenic effects to, inter alia, metabolic disease, thyroid disruption, neurological damage, interference with fetal and earl-y childhood development, dopaminergic harms attention deficits and increased susceptibility to drug addiction), and multiple cancers (most prominently, breast cancer). 1 87. Studies have also demonstrated?and sources including Mayo Clinic and Harvard University School of Public Health warn?that exposure to heat can cause EPA to leach out of plastic at especially dangerous levels. 88. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants did and do direct asciaBlaster users to use copious heat in their 'blasting? routines; each named Plaintiff followed such instruction, and 'blasted? only during or immediately after a sauna or very hot bath or shower- For example, Plaintiff Lanum used a portable sauna device which was provided to every participant in the putative ?clinical trial? at Plaintiff Haavisto?s husband built a sauna for her in their home?at substantial expense?speci?cally for ?blasting? purposes when she bought FasciaBlaster; Plaintiff Gaines would always 'blast? during a hot shower. On information and belief, tens of thousands of FasciaBlaster users follow Defendants? guidance for use under temperature conditions which dramatically increase the risk of EPA leaching from the device into their skin. Moreover, on information and belief, Defendants? recommended oils and moisturizers risk further increasing dermal penetrability, i.e. the ease with which a toxin like BPA can slip into the user?s body through her skin. FDA Inspection 89. Between July 18 and August 4, 2017, an investigator from the U.S. Department of ?Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration found numerous faults with Defendants? business practices, detailed in Establishment Inspection Report FEI 3012547534 Inspection Report?), which the Plaintiffs submit herewith as ?Exhibit Among other things, the FDA Inspection Report re?ects the Investigator?s determinations that: Defendants had failed to develop, maintain, or implement procedures for Medical Device Reporting by consumers. Defendants were aware that 70 MDRS had been ?led in the . preceding year alleging injury by FasciaBlaster, but Defendants had nevertheless failed in every instance to initiate any corrective and preventive procedures to address them. (0) Defendants had in fact ?failed to document[], or -40- implement[] [any] CAPA procedure to analyze, for example, processes, work operations, recurring complaints, returned product and other sources of quality data that identify existing and potential causes of nonconforming product or other quality problems.? I Defendants have ?been importing their FDA registered, Class I medical device for at least 18 months, beginning initially in 2015 but there was no evidence that complaints older than 01 month have been evaluated.? The foregoing might be explained in part by the fact that, for every example of a user complaint which the Investigator cites in her report, she notes either that found or found no evidenCe that an attempt was made tadetermine the relationship]? any, of the device to the reported incident or adverse event to evaluate if it was MDR or that found no evidence that an attempt was made, after learning the batch number of the medical device, to determine why the medical device malfunctioned failure to meet design speci?cations.? (Emphasis added.) ?Multiple complaints began to come into database? as far back as ?June 2016? and, the Investigator explicitly makes note, multiple consumers reported requiring hospitalization for their injuries. ?The FasciaBlaster and AshleyBlackGuru (websites) appear to make structure/function claims that exceed the limitations of a Class II (sic) medical device.? ?The website makes disease claims by asserting that the medical device can alleviate the of speci?c diseases. For example, Restores Blood ?ow (cardiovascular disease) Inereases Nerve Activity (rheumatoid arthritis) -41- 90. Cardiac output is increased (cardiovascular disease) Better blood pressure (cardiovascular disease) Less brain fog (Alzheimers) Lessens stress on joints (rheumatoid arthritis) In?ammation reduced (rheumatoid arthritis) Loosens the Primary System that Causes Pain (?bromyalgia)? From the Dallas area, alone, FDA had received ?approximately 06 complaints alleging injury due to the medical device or requesting assistance due to disease claims made by the inventor, Ashley Black.? Defendant?s agent or employee?identity redacted from the report?who ?inputs the required FDA, medical device description in" the US. Customs database? when the device?s manufacturer(s) ships it to the US. ?was recently given direction by [redacted] to change the product code for the FasciaBlaster from a-?nished device 89LYG (manUal therapeutic massager) to a medical device component, 89IOD (Exercise component) . . . [a]t least 05 detentions were initiated by FDA imports due to not having matching product code between the exporting manufacturer (shipping) and the Initial Importer (receiving).? requested to see the raw data in support of the clinical study documented online The ?rm [Defendant had no raw data available for regulatory review. The intrepid FDA Investigator comes across as surprised to ?nd herself in the position of having to be the one to educate Defendants? representatives regarding their basic responsibilities and duties owed to customers and society at large. Her detailed depictions of some of Defendants? confused and unprepared employees, desperately claiming ignorance, earnestly turning over empty report -42- ?les, etc. might even be humorous, had so many customers not been sobadly injured by their irresponsibility and incompetence. The Investigator seems almost incredulous about being thrust into the role of chastising federal schoolmarm: Speci?cally, your'?rm, ADB Interests LLC, has no MDR procedure or internal system in place[] to provide for the timely and effective identi?cation, communication and evaluation of events that may be subject to medical device reporting requirements. 1] ADB Interests LLC is registered with the FDA as a Speci?cation Developer of Class I ?nished medical devices: manual, therapeutic massagers. Your ?rm also acts as the Initial Importer. As such, you are responsible for maintaining, evaluating and investigating, when necessary, all complaints that may allege serious injury or malfunction by your medical device, asciaBlaster. (Emphasis added.) In sum, from the date of its entry into commerce until July 18, 2017, if not more recently or indeed currently, Defendant ADBI was grossly noncompliant with FDA regulations, and at best oblivious, if not willfully dismissive, of its obligation to society to refrain from selling a dangerous product. Defamation and Cyber-Bullying 91. On information and belief, for Defendants? marketing purposes they did and do rely most heavily on social media forums, e.g. discussion groups and Defendant Black?s and other company pro?le pages? comments sections on Facebook. In these forums Defendants did and do e. g. tout FasciaBlaster?s putative beauty and health bene?ts, encourage purchases of different device models and accessories, and cheerlead, motivate, and aggressively endeavor to foster a feeling of community among 'blasters,? e. g; referring to their number as ?Blaster Sisters?. 92. One consequence of the foregoing is that this 'community? has many if not all the hallmarks ofa religious cult: a charismatic, (ii) self-assured, self- designated 'visionary? leader, with (iv) dubious credentials, who makes lofty and (vi) scienti?cally-unproven promises with (vii) absolute certainty, which her would?be acolytes must take on faith subject, for good measure, to either (ix) -43- choreographed and overly-enthusiastic cheerleading and praise for their loyal commitment to the leader?s ?vision?, or else (xi) vindictive retaliatory punishment of any dissent, including banishment from discussion groups, social media 'unfriending,? and coordinated campaigns of libel, character-attack, intimidation, tortious interference, and other harassment orchestrated, on information and belief, by Black herself. Multiple Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have experienced all of the foregoing. 93. Defendant Black, along with operating via social media and other media at Black?s behest, on information and belief (collectively, ?cyberbully Defendants?), did and do attempt to discredit anyone making any negative feedback about FasciaBlaster. Black did and does undertake or encourage these acts for the plain commercial purpose of protecting her FasciaBlaster brand, if not also (ii) in a cognitively dissonant effort to safeguard the lofty social position she believes she has earned, which (subject to proof) has clearly instilled in her a personal animus against the audacity of any dissension. As addressed supra, and in other ways subject to proof, some Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have been inter alia publicly disparaged, baselessly accused of crimes, and threatened e.g. with reprisals against their personal businesses by the cyberbully Defendants. 94. In addition to the wrongful acts which the cyberbully Defendants have perpetrated in their own names, on information and belief one or more of the cyberbully Defendants has created fake Facebook user accounts for the purpose of defaming, harassing, intimidating, and bullying certain named Plaintiffs and others who had honestly publicized negative experiences with FasciaBlaster. As addressed supra, Plaintiffs have good cause to conclude that one of the cyberbully Defendants manufactured ?Sarah Minow? in order to undermine and attack dissatis?ed customers, including some of the named Plaintiffs, and to rally others to do so. On information and belief, the same can be said' of Facebook personae ?Georgia Peach,? ?Brown Shuga,? and ?Nikki Kaviani? who likewise did and do habitually harass, threaten, and bully anybody with the temerity to discuss negative 'blasting? experiences on Facebook, including some of the named Plaintiffs. 95. Since first being contacted by antagonistic Facebook discussion group participants such as Ms. Minow, Ms. Peach, Ms. Shuga, and Ms. Kaviani, some Plaintiffs have been targeted for defamation, harassment and bullying in other arenas. For example, wholly fabricated criticisms about some Plaintiffs? personal business enterprises have sprung up e. g. on Facebook, Yelp.com, and other crowd? sourced commercial review websites/applications. On information and belief, said professional defamation and attempted tortious interference is part and parcel of Defendant Black?s broader scheme?along with unwarranted, vindictive personal attacks and bizarre threats?to silence her growing chorus of actual, human critics. 96. The behavior of a particular group of Facebook personae (which might be the same persona) operating on Defendants? behalf under the pseudonyms ?Black Ryno Security?, ?Ryno Black?, ?Ryno Brandt?, and ?Ryno Ulili? (collectively, ?Ryno?) is of particular concern. Multiple Plaintiffs, and many others similarly situated, have been made to feel anxious, exposed, unsafe, and afraid by Ryno?s conduct, including inter alia: Ryno made numerous publiccomments on Facebook, as well as in private messages, accusing Defendants? critics of various crimes and deceptions, and vaguely threatening that e.g. women are ?putting themselves at risk? by their participation in one of the independent acebook groups which have been created by and for the many dissatis?ed FasciaBlaster users. On July 8, 2017, Ryno posted a warning message on FacebOok listing 51 FasciaBlaster critics by name, and encouraging e.g. business owners to block these critics from their Facebook pages in retaliation. -45- a; 3-11information and Belief, Ryno did and does run background checks on Defendants? critics, having on at least three occasions publicized critics? having been arrested, e. g. for what any of that had to do with FasciaBlaster remains to be seen, but plainly it was intended to harass and intimidate. Some FasciaBlaster critics have had their Facebook accounts hacked, ?nding earlier private messages from Defendant Black deleted by Ryno or someone associated with Ryno, on information and belief. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these hacking victims may have used the same password to register with Defendants? online resources. that they use for Facebook, thereby inadvertently providing Defendants With those passwords. Facebook tracks pro?le logins by geographical location, and some of these hacking victims, who do not live in Texas, received indication from Facebook that their accounts had been accessed by someone in Texas, the same state where Defendant ADBI is headquartered. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (FALSE ADVERTISING) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 97. Paragraphs 1 through 96 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 98. All Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the specified Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 99. Agents and/or employees of the Defendants?including Defendant -46- Black herself in both her personal capacity as a proud 'celebrity mogul? and in her capacity as President and spokesperson for the corporate co-Defendants which bear her name or initials?publicly disseminated untrue and/or misleading statements with the intention to induce customers to purchase Defendants? commercial products in reliance on said untrue and/or misleading statements. 100. Cal. 'Civ. Code 1770 deems it unlawful to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certi?cation of goods and services.? (Emphasis added.) Defendants misrepresented the designation of FasciaBlaster as a ?Class 1 medical device With the same degree of regulation as dental floss?as constituting the having bestowed its blessing on serious and complex health claims and uses, far a?eld of the presumably modest bene?ts and uses which someone at FDA once had in mind, regarding what had doUbtless seemed simply to be one of the market?s many innocuous commercial implements for gentle self-massage, on information and belief. 101. Cal. Civ. Code 1770 prohibits ?[r]epresenting that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, bene?ts, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, af?liation, or connection which he or she does nothave.? Defendants? marketing did and does contravene this provision in numerous ways, including inter alia: false representations of FDA approval of FasciaBlaster?s marketed techniques for use; claims that it has been subject to ?double?blind? testing, which it was not; guarantees that it ?cures? cellulite, improves muscle tone, rejuvenates skin, etcetera, all of which the Plaintiffs have found to be far from the truth; and strenuous denials regarding its dangerous'effect on estrogen and other hormone levels, even while Defendants were aware of, and attempting to?squelch, reports to the contrary. 102. Defendants further violated Cal. Civ. Code 1770 by their false assertions of the medical and/or academic quali?cations of individuals associated with FasciaBlaster, including, inter alia: representations that is a ?scientist? and Licensed Massage Therapist, when on information and belief she has no such license and no formal scienti?c education; repeated references in promotional materials (videos and podcasts), by Black, to former FasciaBlaster spokesperson, Dari Samia, as ?Doctor Dari,? when in fact Mr. Samia is a nurse, not a doctor; references to putative researcher Ms. Stross as a ?neuroscientist,? though she is in fact a massage therapist who, on information and belief, has no such academic background; and references to putative researcher Jameson as ?Doctor Bart,? though he is in fact an athletic trainer who, on information and belief, has no medical or scienti?c quali?cations of any kind. 103. The foregoing misleading and/or false designations of medical/academic authority are/were evinced, and exacerbated, when on multiple occasions Black, Samia, Stross, Jameson, and others did and do purport to be quali?ed to dispense, and did and do dispense, advice on issues of a medical nature, including inter alia regarding: eblasting? while pregnant that it is ?perfectly serious post-partum considerations such as Diastasis Recti, separation of the large abdominal muscles that 'blasting? ?xes it); . stroke that it is not a risk); '5 The ?Terms Conditions? section of Defendants? AshleyBlackGuru.com webpage currently) offers a warning against certain uses of FasciaBlaster, e.g. while pregnant, over varicose veins. On information and belief, this disclaimer was added on or around May 22, 2017, prior to which Defendants?Defendant Black most enthusiasticallymexpressly made exactly opposite assertions of safety and usefulness, as described herein. 28 -43- ., '75 .. InkMultiple Sclerosis that 'blasting?lcan cure it); Parkinson?s Disease that 'blasting? helps with . brain injury; I VertigO; peripheral neuropathy; Fibromyalgia: Sciatica; varicose veins ?you can use FasciaBlaster to ERASE your varicose and (1) other delicate medical topics, subject to proof. 104. The FDA Inspection RepOrt, for its part, presents eight unapproved and illegal medical claims by Defendants, out of many more on information and belief. (E Para. 89(h), supra.) The FDA Inspection Report further notes that Defendant ADBI ?had no raw data for regulatory review[]? from the putative clinical trial16 which'Defendants tout authoritatively for'marketing purposes. Para. 89(k), supra.) In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendants did or do fabricate the data, or direct or solicit DOE Defendant(s) to do so, in order to falsely advertise the benefits of 'blasting?. 105. Further, the FDA Inspection Report evinces Defendants? willful blindness to the relationship between FasciaBlaster and the many injuries its users have informed Defendants about. (E Para. 89(e), supra.) Since first entering commerce in (on information and belief) 2015, through at least July 18, 2017, Defendants were and may still be violating FDA regulations by their lack of '6 This presumably refers only to the putative clinical trial that actually occurred, to the degree it did, as opposed to one of the scienti?c studies which, on information and belief, Defendants have falsely claimed to have performed. (if? Para. 84(b), supra.) -49- reporting (MDR) or remedying (CAPA)procedu?res. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that these failures were the obvious and natural result of the reckless indifference demonstrated by Defendants" failure to meaningfully investigate the connection between 'blasting? and the numerous serious injuries reported to Defendants during that long time span. On information and belief, Defendants reasoned that they had more to gain by turning a blind eye. Defendants knew of injurious side effects, thus the failure to investigate their connection to FasciaBlaster ought reasonably to impute knowledge thereof to Defendants. On information and belief, while touting a nigh-miraculous laundry list of health bene?ts from cblasting?, Defendants simultaneously, intentionally withheld actual and/or imputed knowledge of serious dangers from the buying public. I 106. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have been directly and proximately harmed by acts and omissions of Defendants. As such, the Plaintiffs, in their personal capacities and on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 1781 and 1782(d), hereby seek injunctive relief to curtail and, to the degree possible, reverse all of Defendants? deceptive marketing practices before Plaintiffs, Class members, and other vulnerable people might be further harmed thereby. Plaintiffs hereby request that the Court enjoin Defendants to immediately undertake the following remedial commercial actions, to the degree possible, in or on every medium Defendants did or do use for any marketing purpose, including prominently and permanently on the 'Home? page of every website and social media pro?le controlled by Defendant: publicly and Specifically retract all false health claims pertaining to FasciaBlaster that Defendants have previously made; ceaseand refrain from henceforth making any de?nitive health claims pertaining to FasciaBlaster which are not specifically approved by an accredited health-related institution, to. be approved by the -50- 22x .39 L7 171?.? TI: - - '1 1 'tiPlaintiffs; supplement Defendant?s existing ?Terms Conditions? disclosure of possible side effects to include all side effects for which Plaintiff-approved health professionals suspect a connection to 'blasting? subject to proof, including inter alia anxiety, dizziness, heart palpitations, bruise staining, sagging skin, crepe skin, worsened cellulite, etc. include in all future promotional material?and to the extent possible, amend any existing promotional material to include?the statement ?Ashley Black is Not a Medical Professional. Consult Your Doctor Before Use? in writing no more than one font-size smaller than the biggest font-size appearing anywhere else in the advertisement if the advertisement is in print, or at the beginning and end of every promotional video or audio recording, at the same or louder speaking volume as the rest of the recording; redesign and manufacture FasciaBlaster without EPA, and amend any existing. promotional material to include the statement asciaBlasters Sold Before May Contain BPA And Should Not Be Used In High Temperature Conditions?. institute MDR and CAPA procedures assiduously compliant with all FDA regulations, AMA guidelines, etc. publicize offer for full refund of any asciaBlaster device or accessory, no questions asked, with no expiration date; and record and publicly display a video online wherein Black apologizes by name to each individual who will have provided formal notice of having been unfairly maligned or intimidated online by one of the Defendants or by any third party on behalf of any Defendant. -51- 00?s] Plaintiffs further request that the Court enjoin Defendants to immediately: cease and refrain from all promotion and sales of FasciaBlaster worldwide until Defendants have veri?ably undertaken all of the remedial commercial actions speci?ed supra at subsections of this paragraph; provide every participant from Defendant?s putative clinical trial with her own full medical ?le i.e. all medical information gathered about the participant during the ASPI study; 7 after all private medical information has been provided to the participants, Defendant will veri?ably destroy any remnant or record of any of the foregoing information still in its possession; and for any future effort at a scienti?c study regarding FasciaBlaster, Defendant will adhere to all FDA and American Medical Association regulations and guidelines, including IRB supervision. Plaintiffs also seek attorney?s fees and costs of suit incurred herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (STRICT PRODUCTS DEFECT) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 107. Paragraphs 1 through 106 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 108. The. speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 109. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. -52- .. .110. As described herein supra, and on other occasions subject to proof, FasciaBlaster did not and routinely does not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect it to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. 111. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the gravity of the potential harm resulting from the use of FasciaBlaster is extremely high. 112. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the named Plaintiffs, and many others similarly situated, were harmed by their use of FasciaBlasters. 113. FasciaBlaster?s failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing harm to the named Plaintiffs, and to many others similarly situated. 1 14. On information and belief, the entire premise of achieving health - bene?ts from 'blasting? one?s fascia, which premise underlies FasciaBlaster?s design, is unfounded and dangerous. On information and belief, no product designed to 'blast? fascia could or would be medically sound if used for'that purpose. 115. The bene?t of FasciaBlaster?s design, if any, is signi?cantly outweighed by the gravity of the potential harm resulting from the use of FasciaBlaster, which is very high as described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof. 1 16. The benefit ofFasciaBlaster?s design, if any, is signi?cantly outweighed by the likelihood that harm will occur from FasciaBlaster use, which is very high as described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof. 1 17. asciaBlaster is fundamentally dangerous, likely to cause unexpected harm(s) to its users, and irredeemable by any putative bene?t. As such, the design of FasciaBlaster?including all versions of devices marketed under that or a similar name for similar use?is defective under both the 'customer expectation? and 'risk- bene?t? tests. The foregoing is the direct and proximate cause of harms suffered by the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, to whom the speci?ed Defendants are therefore strictly liable for all damages associated with FasciaBlaster. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (STRICT PRODUCTS TO WARN) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 118. Paragraphs 1 through 117 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 119. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the Speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 120. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 121. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, FasciaBlaster use carries with it potential risks and/or side effects that were known to the speci?ed Defendants, and/or knowable in light of medical knowledge generally accepted in the scienti?c community, at all relevant times. herein. Such knowledge may appropriately be imputed to the Defendants due to, inter alia: the signi?cant volume of customer complaints which any Defendant, or agent or employee thereof, caused to be erased from Facebook discussion groups and elsewhere; 70 or more customer complaints lodged directly with a Defendant or agent or employee thereof prior to July 18, 2017, at least, which Defendants intentionally or recklessly neglected to meaningfully investigate, on information and belief gg, Para. supra); -54- data from the putative clinical trial undertaken by Defendants which, on information and belief?based on, inter alia, Defendants? refusal to disclose said data to the participants, notwithstanding promises and privacy obligations to do so, and inability to provide it- to the FDA Investigator, notwithStanding regulatory obligation to do so? support Plaintiffs? allegationsherein of risks and side effects, if not also of additional risks and side effects subject to proof; and the fact that, on information and belief?based on, inter alia, photographic evidence?Defendant Ashley Black herself has suffered or is suffering from undisclosed risks and side effects of ?blasting,? including inter alia severely resurgent cellulite on her own legs, which is regrettable and would not merit mentioning except under the circumstances giving rise to this action. 122. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, FasciaBl?aster?s potential risks and/or side effects did and do present a substantial danger when FasciaBlaster is used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. 123. As described herein supra, and for other reasons subject to proof, ordinary customers such as. the named Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, did not, do not, and would not recognize the potential risks and/or side effects of FasciaBlaster use, particularly in light of Defendants? aggressive wide-scale marketing. 124. As described herein supra, and in other Ways subject to proof, the speci?ed Defendants failed to adequately warn the public about the potential risks and side effects of FasciaBlaster use, and failed to adequately instruct the public on ways, if any exist, that the potential risks and side effects of FasciaBlaster use might be avoided. -55- .il\lO125. The speci?ed Defendants? failures to provide the public with either suf?cient warnings about FasciaBlaster, or instructions for its safe use (if any safe use is possible), was a substantial factor in causing the harms described herein, and any other harms subject to proof, suffered by the Plaintiffs and any others similarly situated. 126. At all relevant times herein, the speci?ed Defendants could, can, and should, but did and do fail to, warn customers and potential customers of serious risks and/or side effects from FasciaBlaster use. The foregoing acts and omissions by Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of harms suffered by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, to whom the speci?ed Defendants are therefore strictly liable for all damages associated with FasciaBlaster. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENCE) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 127. Paragraphs 1 through 126 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 128. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the cemmercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 129. The speci?ed Defendants did or do perform, supervise, and/or were or are otherwise responsible for the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 130?. The speci?ed Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that asciaBlaster was dangerous or likely to be dangerous when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner. ~56- 533335 28 131. The speci?ed Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that customers and potential customers would not be aware of the potential danger(s) of FasciaBlaster use. 132. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the Specified Defendants failed to adequately warn the public about the potential dangers of asciaBlaster use. Further, the speci?ed Defendants failed to adequately instruct the public on- ways, if any exist, that the potential dangers of FasciaBlaster use might be avoided. Even if and to the degree any speci?ed Defendant(s) learned about any foreseeable danger from FasciaBlaster use after any sale(s) had already been made, the speci?ed Defendant(s) nevertheless failed to issue a recall. 133. A reasonable manufacturer, tester, marketer, distributor, or seller under the same or similar circumstances as the speci?ed?Defendants?, knowing that a device he/she/ it sells is foreseeably dangerous, would warn the public about that danger and/or instruct the public on safe use of theidevice, if any safe use exists, or upon learning of such danger after sale(s) would issue a recall of the device. Such reasonable actor would do the foregoing not only as a matter of obvious business diligence, but hopefully per the basic care and consideration for the general wellbeing of other peOple on which civilized society relies. - 134. Because the specified Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that FasciaBlaster is foreseeably dangerous, yet failed to so warn or instruct the public, or issue a recall, notwithstanding that such is what reasonably careful actors under the same or similar circumstances would do, the speci?ed Defendants were and are negligent in supervising and/or conducting the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. Such negligencewas the direct and proximate cause of harms suffered by the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, to whom the specified Defendants are therefore liable for all damages -57- 311:: i. . it". 5p' A 77. ILL 13 42' .31} 1.. 43associated with FasciaBlaster. 135. Each Plaintiff, and many others similarly situated, suffered serious emotional distress, including one or more of suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, anxiety, grief, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. 136. The speci?ed Defendants? negligence was a substantial factor in causing the serious emotional distress of Plaintiffs and many others similarly situated. . 137. In light of the foregoing, the speci?ed Defendants are liable for general damages from negligent in?iction of emotional distress upon the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENCE PER SE) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 138. Paragraphs 1 through 137 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 139. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. I 140. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 141. The speci?ed Defendants are and/or were negligent in supervising and/or conducting the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 142. Personal health information pertaining to Plaintiffs Lanum, Dorenkamp, and others similarly situated more than 30 other participants in -58- 00?213:" 27 any putatively scienti?c testing undertaken and/or commissioned by the speci?ed Defendants, on information and belief) is subject to strict protections by statutes and regulations, including inter Cilia Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act Act?), Omnibus Rule,? and California?s Con?dentiality of Medical Information Act Civ. Code 56-5637] 143. Acts and omissions by the speci?ed Defendants caused, contributed to, facilitated, or incited third parties to engage in unlawful disclosure(s) and/or other misuse(s) of PHI pertaining to Plaintiffs Lanum, Dorenkamp, and others similarly situated, including inter alia commercial use of Lanum?s, Dorenkamp?s, and others? PHI for such improper purposes and effects as: (3) advertising FasciaBlaster in various media; 7 to shame, embarrass, and discredit Lanum, Dorenkamp, and others via social media in retaliation for honest negative feedback; failing and/or refusing to provide Lanum, Dorenkamp, and others with their own PHI upon request; and i in other ways subject to proof. 144. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the speci?ed Defendants? unlawful disclosure(s) and other misuse(s) of PHI was/is a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, including inter alia injury to personal and professional reputation, and emotional distresses such as suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, anxiety, grief, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. 145. In light of the foregoing, the Speci?ed Defendants are strictly liable for special and general damages, including for emotional distress, upon the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. -59- .5131SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (GROSS NEGLIGENCE) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 146. Paragraphs 1 through 145 are incorporated by reference as though ?illy set forth herein. 147. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 148. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale? of FasciaBlaster. 149. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, certain acts and omissions by the speci?ed Defendants are/were so severely careless that they constitute(d) an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. Such acts and omissions include, inter other: unscienti?c and improper execution of Defendants? putative FasciaBlaster clinical trial falling far short of ordinary scienti?c practice both procedurally and'administratively, including in the violation of HIPAA and other rights of participants both during and after the study; unabating aggressive marketing of FasciaBlaster, including with unfounded medical 'claims, notwithstanding Defendants? receipt of, on information and belief, over 70 direct customer complaints regarding serious side effects as of July 18, 2017, at least; failure to meaningfully investigate over 70 direct customer complaints regarding serious side effects; and ?60- unabating aggressive marketing of FasciaBlaster, including with unfounded medical claims, in conjunction with the wide-scale summary deletion of any negative customer feedback posted in putatively Open and honest social media forums controlled by Defendants. 150. Putting aside statutes and regulations against conducting a merely methodologically-?awed scienti?c study, it is afar more extreme deviation from ordinary standards of care when that study also lacks IRB oversight, or (ii) any guidance from a genuine medical doctor for that matter, while promotional materials make both subtle and overt misrepresentations regarding procedures ?double-blind?) and (iv) academic and medical credentials ?Dr. Bart?), including with respect to putative researchers who take participants? medical and privacy rights far more than required by FDA regulations, and (vi) fail to produce study data upon request by participants and (vii) an FDA Investigator. 151. On information and belief, the foregoing precise scenario took place, inter alia, causing harms suffered by Plaintiffs Lanum and Dorenkamp, more than 30 other participants in Defendants? putative clinical trial, and thereafter every subsequent FasciaBlaster user who reasonably relied on, at best, willfully ignorant assertions about the putative clinical trial?s legitimacy according to the Defendants. 152. Multiple acts and omissions by the speci?ed Defendants require(d) such extreme departures from ordinary standards of care that they constitute(d) gross negligence, constituting the direct and proximate cause of harms suffered by the Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, to whom the Defendants are therefore liable for damages associated with asciaBlaster e.g. after pertinent customer feedback was ignored or censored, after the putative clinical trial, etc. 153. Each Plaintiff and many others similarly situated suffered serious emotional distress, including one or more of suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, anxiety, grief, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. -6l? .37- "Jamar154. The speci?ed Defendants? gross negligence was a substantial factor in causing the serious emotional distress of Plaintiffs and many others similarly situated. 155. In light of the foregoing, the speci?ed Defendants are liable for actual and general damages, including from in?iction of emotional distress, upon the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (RECKLESS MISCONDUCT) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 156. Paragraphs 1 through 155 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 157. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial benefit of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 158. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 159. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, certain acts and omissions by the speci?ed Defendants did and do evince deliberate I disregard for the rights and safety of every FasciaBlaster user and potential user, which disregard did and does subject Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to a high probability of the array of injuries described herein, if not more subject to A proof. For example, when any Defendant, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, summarily deletes from putatively open Internet discussion forums any negative user feedback in the nature of e.g. 'blasting is messing with my hormone levels,? then banishes the commenter from the forum and threatens to or does retaliate due to -62- that honest feedback, such deletion, banishment and threats/retaliation, in order to chill honest feedback, demonstrate willful and conscious disregard for the health of every contemporaneous or future FasciaBlaster user who e.g. might be reviewing the putatively open forum in an effort to determine whether her own early of hormone imbalance might be attributable to her recently undertaken 'blasting? regimen. Such interference, with plainly germane third-party warnings, for purely commercial reasons at best, brazenly disregards the safety of all FasciaBlaster users. On information and belief, the specified Defendants perpetrated the foregoing scenario on many occasions. 160. Moreover, the speci?ed Defendants, officer(s), director(s), and/or manager(s) thereof, did and/orl7 do fail to make substantial changes. e. g. to product design, instructiOns for product use, or marketing language or strategy. Said failures, along with Defendants? willfully ignoring potentially important feedback from hundreds of consumers?e.g. by their censorship and retaliatory defamation described above, by their failure to develop, maintain, or implement MDR and CAPA procedures pursuant to FDA regulations Para. supra), by their conducting a putative clinical trial and then-hiding and ignoring the results, on information and belief?taken together constitute a pattern of deliberate disregard for'the health and safety of others in favor of keeping sales numbers as high as possible. 161. The foregoing is far more egregious than mere mistake or incompetence: it is recklessness, and the direct and proximate cause of harms suffered by Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, to whom the specified '7 On information and belief, Defendants updated the ?Terms Conditions? section of the AshleyBlackGuru.com webpage on May 22, 2017 (E FN. 3, supra), but any effect thereof on their larger marketing approach is subject to proof. Defendants are therefore liable for general and special damages associated with FasciaBlaster, and for punitive damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 3294, exemplifying the important public policy interest in deterring other commercial actors from displaying the same level of disregard for societal health and wellbeing that Defendants did and do amply diSplay. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 162. Paragraphs 1 through 161 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. I 163. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability . for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, I undertaken in the course of any commercial conduct for the bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 164. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 165. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the speci?ed Defendants were responsible for, personally made, and/or publicized statements of purported fact, to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, pertaining to e.g. the use of FasciaBlaster, including inter alia that it eliminates the appearance of cellulite ?this will absolutely work for everyone?), improves skin tone and muscle de?nition, does not interfere with hormone levels, is a treatment for MS, Parkinson?s disease, and other neurological conditions, can ?x inter alia frozen shoulder, rotator cuff injury, tendonitis, shin splints, Iliotibial band Plantar asciitis, and posture, and many other such assertions re?ected herein. 166. As described herein supra, and in_other ways subject to proof, multiple -64- statements of purported fact which Defendants made and/or publicized, or induced others to make and/or publicize, were presented as more than mere opinions or personal recommendations, but rather in the nature of performance guarantees, including with the express and implied weight of authority conferred by inter alia medical and academic credentials falsely asserted by Defendants, and factual misrepresentations by Defendants asto putative clinical trial procedures and results. 167. As described hereinsupm, and in other ways subject to proof, FasciaBlaster did and does fail. to perform as guaranteed by Defendants, as evinced in numerous respects including, inter alia and most demonstrably, the fact that many Plaintiffs and others similarly situated?including, on information and belief, Defendant Black herself?currently exhibit e. g. a more pronounced appearance of cellulite than they did before using FasciaBlaster.? 168. Some Plaintiffs and many others similarly situated have informed Defendants that FasciaBlaster?s design is defective for purposes of achieving the myriad benefits promised by Defendants. 169. Defendants did and do fail to repair, redesign, or reengineer FasciaBlaster in order to make it perform as expressly represented by Defendants. Further, Defendants did and do fail to notify the public, including Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, that FasciaBlaster?s design is defective for purposes of the myriad bene?ts promised by Defendants. 170. FasciaBlasters? failure to perform as represented was and is a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. 17]. In light of the foregoing, the specified Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for breach of Defendants? express warranties pertaining to FasciaBlaster?s abilities to provide health and aesthetic benefits. -65- NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 172. Paragraphs 1 through 171are incorporated by reference as though ?ill'y set forth herein. 173. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondent superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any commercial conduct for the bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 174. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated purchased FasciaBlasters from the Defendants, and the latter did and do know or have reason to know that every purchaser did or does intend to use the device for the purpose of achieving one or more results which Defendants did or do assert that 'blasting? achieves. 175. The speci?ed Defendants know or have reason to know that Plaintiffs and others similarly situated did, or will, rely on Defendants? skill, judgment, and/or putative medical or academic authority to design, fabricate, test, market, and sell a product suitable for the purposes eagerly promoted by Defendants. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated did and do justi?ably rely on Defendants? skill, judgment, and/or putative medical or academic authority, and will continue to do so as long as the Defendants continue in their course of commercial conduct at issue, barring e.g. injunctive relief. 176. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, FasciaBlaster was not, is not, and will not be suitable for some if not all of the -66- 1 purposes for which Plaintiffs and other similarly situated did or will purchase it. As 2 described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, some Plaintiffs and many 3 others similarly situated have taken reasonable steps, within a reasonable time, to 4 notify the Defendants that FasciaBlaster is not suitable for some if not all of the 5 purposes for which Plaintiffs and others similarly situated did or will purchase it. 177. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, FasciaBlaster?s unsuitability for some if not all of the purposes for which Plaintiffs and other similarly situated did or will purchase it was, is, orwill be a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. 10 178. In lightof the foregoing, the speci?ed Defendants are liable to 11 Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for breach of implied warranties of 12 FaSciaBlaster?s ?tness for particular purpose, i.e. to proVide the health and aesthetic 13 bene?ts advertised by Defendants, as relied upon by Plaintiffs. 14 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY MERCHANTIBILITY) 16 Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 17 179. Paragraphs 1 through 178 are incorporated by reference as though fully 18 set forth herein. 19 180. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability 20 for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, 21 undertaken in the course of any commercial conduct for the bene?t of Defendants, 22 collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also 23 be jointly, liable for their own acts subject to proof. 24 181. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) 25 the manufacture, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. The Plaintiffs 26 and others similarly situated purchased FasciaBlasters from the Defendants in 27 reliance on inter alia the speci?ed Defendants? holding themselves and one another -67- ff-?having special scientific knowledge or skill regarding the realm of health and aesthetic bene?ts which, Defendants convinced Plaintiffs, FasciaBlaster purportedly confers. 182. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, FasciaBlaster was not and is not ?t for even the most ordinary among the many wide-ranging purposes which Defendants did or do promote, particularly given the techniques they instruct. For example, on information and belief, FasciaBlaster?s high BPA content renders it below the standard quality expected of a purported medical implement safe for use in a hot bathtub, shower or saUna, yet Defendants did and do instruct precisely such use. 183. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, some Plaintiffs and many others similarly situated have taken reasonable steps, within a reasonable time, to notify the Defendants that FasciaBlaster did or does not have the expected quality. 184. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, FasciaBlaster?s failure to have the expected quality was,?is, or will be a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. 185. In light of the foregoing, the? speci?ed Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for breach of implied warranties of merchantability. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 186. Paragraphs 1 through 185 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 187. The specified Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrong?il acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, -68? . undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or'individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 188. The speci?ed Defendants are or were responsible for-and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 189. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the speci?ed Defendants did or do publicize, and/or solicit others to publicize, false statements pertaining to, inter alia: FasciaBlaster?s ef?cacy in achieving certain aesthetic and health results; that FasciaBlaster is 100% safe to use; that FasciaBlaster does not cause weight gain; academic and medical quali?cations of certain Defendants and agents/emplOyees thereof; scientific legitimacy of Defendants? putative clinical trial; etc. 190. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the Speci?ed Defendants knew that their representations were false when they made them, suppressed fact(s) which they had/have obligation(s)i to disclose, including inter alia by publicizing other information likely to mislead for want of communication of the facts suppressed, made promises regarding the performance of FasciaBlaster and accessories without any reasonable knowledge that FasciaBlaster or accessories would perform every promise, and/or made false representations recklessly and without regard for their truth. For the purposes of this and other causes of action, full knowledge of facts to Which Defendants were indifferent, if any, ought properly to be imputed tothem. ?False -69- \representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.? Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc, 15 Cal.4th 951, 974 (1997), gm Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare, 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55 (1963) 191. As described herein supra, and in other. ways subject to proof, the speci?ed Defendants intended that Plaintiffs and others similarly situated would rely on their false representations e. g. in deciding to purchase and use FasciaBlaster. 192. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated reasonably relied on the speci?ed Defendants? false representations, e.g. in purchasing FasciaBlaster and in using it as directed by the Defendants. 193. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were harmed by their use of FasciaBlaster, including endocrine, cardiovascular, digestive, neurological, aesthetic, and other physical harms. 194. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were also harmed by their use of FasciaBlaster inasmuch as many if not all of them did or do suffer serious emotional distress, e.g. one or more of suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, anxiety, grief, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. 195. The reliance by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated on the false representations by the speci?ed Defendants was a substantial factor in causing the speci?ed and ?thher harms suffered by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. As such, the speci?ed Defendants? intentional and/or reckless misrepresentations of fact constitute fraudulent deceit pursuant to inter alia Cal. Civ. Code 1572, 1709, and 1710, and at common law, giving rise to the speci?ed Defendants? liability to the -70- .. .. =2 T1 .2. '32??Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for special and general damages, including inter ether for intentional in?iction of emotional distress, as well as punitive damages, which Plaintiffs hereby request pursuant to inter alia Cal. Civ. Code 3294. . TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DEFAMATION) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 196. Paragraphs 1 through 195 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. I 197. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrong?il acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct fof the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 198. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 199. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the speci?ed Defendants did and'do publicize, and/or solicit, encourage, and permit others to publicize, false and injurious statements about some of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, including within public (social) media forums, e.g. Facebook discussion groups over which the speci?ed Defendants unilaterally exercise editorial control. Within such media forums, the speci?ed Defendants have the power to, and do, delete, overwhelm, or otherwise counter any statement they do not like?on numerous occasions, some or all of the specified Defendants have deleted public comments by Plaintiffs and others e.g. in social media forums controlled by Defendants?yet the Defendants did and do also contemporaneously cause or permit false and disparaging comments pertaining to some Plaintiffs and -71- others similarly situated to remain on public display, to be viewed by hundreds of thousands of people or more. Defendants further did and do falsely disparage Plaintiffs and others similarly situated between one another or with third parties in more private conversations, online messaging (eg. Facebook Messenger), and other media. This conduct is nevertheless defamatory as well. 200. False and disparaging statements which the speci?ed Defendants did and do publicize and/or solicit, encourage, or permit others to publicize, include inter alia: GoFundMe account was set up by Julie Day Lefebvre under the pretenses of raising money to ?help anyone who has been Slapped by Ashley Black? and to take Ashley Black to court in a civil suit. This is fraud, and we encourage you not to associate with this crime? ?[W]hat credible journalist would write a story based on some bs some woman who steals money from gullible women and then uses it for her own advantage. Julie Day Lefebvre. . . .are you sleeping with this man [the isn?t it odd that she avoids the fact that she?s a con artist?? ?Julie has multiple GO FUND ME accounts to raise money for Ashley Black?s ex husband The only problem, the money goes to Julie.? . ?[Plaintiffs] Michelle [Lanum] and Tilly [Dorenkamp] were 100% happy at the end of the study I don't know why people join hate groups but Michelle and Tilly are blocked because they decided to lie and ?Both parties [Lanumand Dorenkamp] had an NDA, so when we saw them posting lies but we were unable to On information and belief, numerous Class members possess evidence of further defamatory statements by the speci?ed Defendants; Plaintiffs expect that their initiating the instant action will encourage more cooperation from other victims who - may be too nervous to be publicly identi?ed until this. litigation is formally underway. Plaintiffs may seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint as and when further defamatory conduct by the speci?ed Defendants comes to light. 201. None of the Plaintiffs or others subject to the speci?ed Defendants? conduct at issue in this cause of action is a public ?gure. 202. Any e. g. Facebook?user who was following the activity of Defendants and their more vocal critics, including some of the Plaintiffs herein, upon reading the disparaging comments by'Defendants would reasonably understand whom they referred to. 203. Any e. g. Facebook user who was following the activity of Defendants and their more vocal critics, including some of the Plaintiffs herein, upon reading the disparaging comments by Defendants would reasonably understand the statements to convey that the disparaged parties are e. g. a collection of mentally deranged liars and criminals. 204. The speci?ed Defendants knew of the falsity of the disparaging statements, or failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statements. Notably, on information and belief, every time the speci?ed Defendants did and do ?rst disparage any given individual, it is in retaliation for a true statement or question from that individual. As such, the speci?ed Defendants know or have reason to know that, at the very least, their ?rst retaliatory libel directed at any given target is false. 205. The above-speci?ed and other false and disparaging statements by the speci?ed Defendants, pertaining to certain Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, were substantial factors in causing harms to those Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. For example, Plaintiff Lefebvre and others similarly situated have been Laharmed in their personal and professional reputations by the false and disparaging statements by the speci?edDefendants. Lefebvre received false negative feedback on her personal business?s Yelp.com customer review page, from people who had not been her customers, whom the speci?ed Defendants had incited to disparage Lefebvre. 206 The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated who have been defamed by the speci?ed Defendants have suffered emotional distress, including inter alia fear, anxiety, anger, morti?cation, depression, shame, and hurt feelings, as a direct and 9 proximate result of said defamation. The Plaintiffs who have been disparaged were driven in part thereby to retain the Law Of?ces of Perrin F. Disner to prosecute this claim, and to suffer all the burdens that accrue from the prosecution of this case, including inter alia requiring them to put private personal information in the public record because this is the only way to adequately defend themselves and their reputations against the speci?ed Defendants? harmful lies about them, shouted from Defendants? bully pulpit and, often, echoed by an obedient chorus of acolytes, many of whom are paid or fake. I 207. In light of the foregoing, the speci?ed Defendants? defamations are direct and proximate causes of harms suffered by certain Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, to whom speci?ed Defendants are therefore liable for any general and special damages attributable thereto. The injunctive relief requested at Para. supra is also warranted, and hereby requested. 208. Moreover, the Plaintiffs will demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the speci?ed Defendants undertook the defamatory conduct maliciously and with knowledge of their statements? falsity or reasonable grounds to doubt their veracity, justifying an award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. -74- 10THIRTEEN TH CAUSE OF ACTION (INTENTIONAL INF LICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 209. Paragraphs 1 through 208 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 210. The speci?ed Defendant's are subject to respondent superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. . 211. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 212. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, in spite of legal and moral obligations to the contrary, the speci?ed Defendants did and do engage in extreme and outrageous conduct, including, inter alia: marketing FasciaBlaster with false promises of miraculous bene?ts, knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that such promises are not based on any sound scienti?c evidence; conducting a putative clinical trial without IRB oversight or the supervision of a medical doctor(s), knowing or recklessly disregarding the danger such failures posed to the trusting participants; asserting that their putative clinical trial was scienti?cally undertaken and de?nitively vindicated their promises, knowing or recklessly disregarding the falsity of those assertions; - failing to undertake a single meaningful investigation?at least as of July 18, 2017 if not more recently?after receiving numerous reports of a wide variety of serious injuries from FasciaBlaster use, -75- \000\10\ knowing or recklessly disregarding serious dangers to public health that investigation would reveal; . failing to remove the product from market or to meaningfully change instructions for its use?at least as of May 22, 2017 if not more recently?knowing or recklessly disregarding the many undisclosed dangerous side effects which many users were reporting since 2016 if not earlier; deleting feedback from, blocking social media participation by, and denigrating honest people who had had bad experiences with FasciaBlaster, knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that such feedback might prevent serious harm to thousands of other people; publicly using the likenesses and protected private medical information of private individuals?including to ridicule and attempt to discredit the individual?~for commercial purposes, knowing or recklessly disregarding the individuals? failure to authorize such use; publicizing, and soliciting, encouraging, and permitting others to publicize, false and injurious statements about private individuals who have suffered physically and emotionally scarring injuries, knowing or recklessly disregarding the additional injurious effect of such conduct. 213. The speci?ed Defendants undertook the foregoing and other extreme and outrageous acts and omissions intending to cause emotional distress to some of the Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, or with reckless disregard for the likelihood that all Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, would suffer emotional distress as a result of the Defendants? acts or omissions, many of which were malicious retaliatory defamation) or oppressive preying on a woman?s insecurity about her legs to sell her an expensive device and accessories which, ample customer feedback indicated, are as likely as not to signi?cantly worsen her -76- appearance and mental state, thus making her more susceptible to further marketing claims and accessory sales in her desperation for the promised ?better? after the 1 ?worse? 8). 214. The Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, did and do suffer severe emotional distress as a result of their experiences with FasciaBlaster., 215. The extreme and outrageous acts and omissions by the speci?ed Defendants?some of which were malicious or oppressive rather than merely willful or reckless?were substantial factors in causing severe emotional distress to each Plaintiff and others similarly situated, to whom the speci?ed Defendants are therefore liable for general, special, and exemplary damages. I FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17200 et seq.) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 216. Paragraphs 1 thrOugh 215 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 217. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any .of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 218. The specified Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 219. California?s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code '8 ?Worse before better!? is a common marketing refrain of Defendant Black?s. Paras. 37, 38, 64, 84(h), supra. The plain effect of such a slogan is to incite injured users to continue injuring themselves, and to buy more products and accessories if necessary, for promises of e. g. smooth thighs just over the horizon. L77- 17200, de?nes ?unfair competition? to include ?any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17203 allows a person who has lost money or property as a result of unfair'competition to bring an action for restitution of money or property acquired from him or her by means of unfair Competition. I . 220. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, the conduct that Plaintiffs herein allege Defendants, and each of them, have undertaken, are still undertaking, and/or will continue to undertake absent e.g. injunctive relief, was and is unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent, many of which acts and omissions did and do constitute unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. 221. As a result of the specified Defendants.? above-alleged unlawful business pra?tices and deceptiVe advertising, Plaintiffs have suffered in jury in fact i and lost moneys and property. 222. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17200 and 17203, Plaintiffs seek an order of restitution for all moneys and property that Defendants have acquired from Plaintiffs by means of unfair competition as set forth above in amounts subject to proof. As part of said relief, I 223. Plaintiffs further request that the Court enjoin Defendants to immediately undertake all of the actions sought at Para. supra. 224., Pursuant to Cal. Bus. Prof. 'Code 17206 Plaintiffs seek civil penalties for unfair competition perpetrated against senior citizens and disabled persons. I i 225. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney?s fees and costs of suit incurred herein. -. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FALSE ADVERTISING Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17500 et seq.) Against Defendants Black, ADBIH, ADBI, and applicable DOES 226. Paragraphs 1 through 225 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. I 227. The speci?ed Defendants are subject to respondeat superior liability for the wrongful acts and omissions of any agent or employee of any of them, undertaken in the course of any conduct for the commercial bene?t of Defendants, collectively or individually. Among the speci?ed Defendants, individuals may also be jointly liable for their own acts subject to proof. 228. The speci?ed Defendants are/were responsible for and/or perform(ed) the manufacture, testing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of FasciaBlaster. 229. Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17500 states: It is unlawful for any person, ?rm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or diSposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known,'or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, ?rm, or corporation to so make or? disseminate or cause to be so made or disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated -79- therein, or as so advertised. Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand ?ve hundred dollars or by both that imprisonment and fine. 230. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, Defendants did and do disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, a wide variety of untrue or [misleading statements concerning FasciaBlaster and accessories. 231. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, Defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have known, that their many of their promotional statements concerning FasciaBlaster were untrue or misleading. 232. Cal. Bus. Prof. Code l7508(a) states: It shall be unlawful for any person doing business in California and advertising to consumers in California to make any false or misleading advertising claim, including claims that purport to be based on factual, objective, or clinical evidence, (2) compare the product?s i effectiveness or safety to that of other brands or products, or (3) purport to be based on any fact. 233. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, Defendants did and do advertise to California consumers with false or misleading claims purporting to be based on fact and, especially, clinical evidence. Defendants also falsely or misleadingly compare FasciaBlaster?s effectiveness to that of e.g. Cool Sculpting and liposuction, claiming that FasciaBlaster is the superior approach to getting rid of cellulite, an utter falsehood. 234. As described herein supra, and in other ways subject to proof, Plaintiffs have been, are, and absent adequate relief will continue to suffer an array of harms from FasciaBlaster use. Defendants? untrue and misleading advertising was and is a direct and proximate cause of some of the harms suffered by Plaintiffs, to whom the specified Defendants are therefore liable for civil penalties in the amount of $2,500 for every instance of an untrue or misleading statement made by the specified -30- Defendants in the course of promoting FasciaBlaster at any point prior to the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs as a result thereof. 235. In addition to civil penalties, the foregoing acts and omissions by Defendants are misdemeanors. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17500, each untrue or misleading statement Defendants did or do make in promoting ?FasciaBlaster is punishable by imprisonment in Los Angeles County Jail for up to six months. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 1. For general damages, according to proof; 2. For special damages, according to proof; 3. For punitive damages in amounts which the Court deems protective of public policy?s interest in deterring the acts and omissions giving rise to this case; 4. For statutory damages; 5. For restitution, subject to proof; 6. For speculative damages accounting for future medical and aesthetic remedies, subject to proof; 7. For damages for lost income, subject to proof; 8. For pre?judgment interest on all damages; 9. That appropriate injunctive relief be entered, including inter alia requiring Defendants to immediately undertake all of the actions speci?ed herein at Para. supra. 10. For reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit, to be determined according to pertinent case law authority; and ll. For incentive awards to the named Plaintiffs for their effort and courage. -81? J. 73.2% .. 31' ?3 73:"'jii27 28 12. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATE: October 19, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF PERRIN F. DISN ER By: MW Pefiin F. Disner Attorneys for Plaintiffs Emily Elso'n, Stacy Haavisto, Loretta Oakes, I Michelle Lanum, Julia Lefebvre, Sue Grlicky, Tilly Dorenkamp, Dina Salas, Arlene Rodriguez, and Jerry- Gaines, and all others similarly situated -82? TRIAL BY JURY Please take notice that atrial by jury is hereby requested. DATE: October 19, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF FERRIN F. DISNER AM Perrin F. Disner Attorneys for Plaintiffs Emily Elson, Stacy Haavisto, Loretta Oakes, Michelle Lanum, Julia Lefebvre, Sue Grlicky, Tilly Dorenkamp, Dina Salas, Arlene . Rodriguez, and Jerry Gaines, and all others similarly situated By: . CM-O1O ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): . FOR COURT USE ONLY ?Perrin Disner- SBN 25 75 86 LAW OFFICES OF F. DISNER 4630 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 105 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 . TELEPHONE no: 310) 742- 7944 - FAX No.2 (888) 544-5154 . i ATTORNEY FOR (Namej: laIntiffs Emily Elson et al. 5U 1-bit}! ?Gill?: 1. g? SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY or: Los Angeles ?0tmty of L08 STREETADDRESS: ?1 112110112 Si? gtreet MAILING ADDRESS: 0ft I treet CITY ANDZIP CODE: L03 An (3135 90012 OCT 2 ?3 20W BRANCH NAME: Stanley osk Courthouse 959?? P- Carter, Executive Officer/Clef CASE NAME: - By ?7512(4): De 1 Emily Elson, et al. v. Ashley Black, et al. ancy Alvarez puy CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET I . CASENUMBER: Unlimited l:l Limited omp ex ase eslgnalon (Am0unt (Amount Counter [3 Joinder demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant JUDGE: exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Beach of comramarranw (05) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400?3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) l: Rule 3.740 collections (09) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Cl Other collections (09) Construction defect (10) DamageIWrongful Death) Tort Insurancecoverage (13) El Mass tort (40) Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) I: Securities litigation (28) Product liability (24) Real Property I: Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain! Inverse l:l Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other (23) . condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort El eViCllO? (33) types (4 l:l Business tortlunfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement Of Judgment Civil rights (03) unlawful Detainer I: Enforcement of judgment (20) I: efamati on (13) El Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint [Z/Eraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (33) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tort (35) Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment El Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) Will of mandate (02) I: Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case [Ii is l: is not complex under rule 3. 400 of the California Rules of Court If the case is complex mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management. a. I: Large number of separately represented parties (I. - Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply)? a. monetary b. - nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief 6. -punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify) 15, inc]. False Advert. Neglig Reckl., Bre. of Warn, Fraud, Defam., 5. This case - is is not a class action suit 6. If there are any known related cases ?le and serve a notice of related case. (Yo use form CM-015.) Date: October 19,2017 Perrin Disner M, . (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE r' 4' oPIaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paperi led in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases ?led its. under the Probate Code Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code) (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3 220.) Failure to ?le may result if: in sanctions. File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule f'i- 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. 3323' Unless this IS a collections case under rule 3. 740 or a complex case this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes oany.g e1of2 .Eo Adapted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court. rules 2. 30. 3. 220 3. 400-3 403. 3. 740; "?gydicial Council of California CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration. Std. 310 CHI-010 [Rev July 1. 2007) wwoouninfocagov CM INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET 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 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 attorney's fees. arising from a transaction in which property. services. or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages. (3) recovery of real property. (4) recovery of personal property. or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identi?cation of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for?service requirements and case management rules. unless a defendant ?les a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only. parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex. the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may ?le and serve no later than the time of its ?rst appearance a joinder in the 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 (22)?Personal DamageNVrongful 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 DamageNVrongful 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 8 Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other (23) Premises Liability (e slip and fall) Intentional Bodily assault. vandalism) Intentional ln?iction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Other (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination. false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation slander. libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice 633-? (not medical or legal) . Other Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) P1. Other Employment (15) its-:1" r-rr July 1. 2007} CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of RentallLease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breachw?leller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract] Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections money owed. open book accounts) (09) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrcgation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain. landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs. check this item; othenivise. 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 3400-3403) Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmentalfl?oxic 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) PetitionlCerti?cation of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Othecr2 Enforcement of Judgment ase Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civll Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page 2 of 2 SHORT CASE NUMBER Elson et al. v..,Black et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AN STATEMENT (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case ?lings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. . Location where performance required or defendant resides. Step 1: After completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet (Judicial Council form ?nd the exact case type in Column A that corresponds to the case type indicated in the Civil Case Cover Sheet. Step 2: In Column B, check the box for the type of action that best describes the nature of the case. i Step 3: In Column C, circle the number which explains the reason for the court filing location you have chosen. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Court Filing Location (Column C) . Class actions must be ?led in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Central District. 7- Location where petitioner resides. . Permissive ?ling in central district. 8. Location wherein defendant/respondent functions wholly. . Location where cause of action arose. 9. Lo'cation where one or more of the parties reside. . Mandatory personal injury ?ling in North District. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner Of?ce. 11. Mandatory ?ling location (Hub Cases - unlawful detainer, limited non-collection, limited collection, or perSOnal injury). . Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle. ass Aa'mai assesses? .?'ggCIvlerase Cov?lrSheet- 35 if . ~AppIIcabie Reasons- . '11 a 631899;}: ..as ?as. Auto (22) Cl A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal InjuryIProperty Damage/Wrongful Death 1. 4. 11 2 1: 13 Uninsured Motorist (46) El A7110 Personal-InjuryIProperty DamageNVrongfulDeath-Uninsured Motorist 1, 4, 11 A (04) Cl A6070 Asbestos Property Damage A7221 Asbestos- Personal InjuryANrongful Death 1.11 a) .5 Product Liability (24) A7260 Product (not asbestos or toxrclenwronmentalA7210 Medical Malpractice- Physicians&Surgeons 114- 11 3 Medical Malpractice (45) . 1 4 11 A7240 Other ProfeSSIonal Health Care Malpractice . 2 0 i A7250 Premises (eg slip and fall$313?: $322}, El A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property DamageIWrongful Death (eg 1 4 11 5 3 Damage Wrongful assault. vandalism. etc.) 0 Death (23) El A7270 Intentionalln?iction of Emotional DIstress 1'4'11 El A7220 Other Personal InjuryIProperty DamageNVrongful Death 1'4'11 Qr'r: 109 (Rev 2115) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASG Approved 03-04 .. AND LOCATION Page 1 of4 .u . . -. I-v- SHORT TITLE: . CASE NUMBER Elson et al. v. Black et al. . ?915.; $1155? 321:3;erwa '6?th . f; {we ApplIcablekr 5152mlCaseCoverSheetgii's ?f ?4 - -~Type 'ofAction . 6 :Reasons": :See Step3 ?megs?? Mat?? ??633 7?13 a: Business Tort (07) A6029 cher CommerciallBusinessTort (not frauc/breach ofcontract) 1.2Civil Rights (08) A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination 1.2.3 5 Defamation(13) 13 A6010 [Defamation(slanderllibel) - 1.2.3 is i; 31 Fraud (16) Eraud (no contract) . 3 1.2.3 93 "6 A6017 LegalMaipractice . 1.2.3 a: Professional Negligence(25) .1 . - A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) I1.2.3 a I -, 2 f: Other(35) El A6025 1.2.3 ?5 Wrongful Termination (36) A6037 Wrongful Termination 1.2.3 0 3? A6024 OtherEmponmentComplaint Case 1.2.3 Other Employment (15) . El 13 A6109 LaborCommissmnerAppeals . 10 CI A6004 Breach of RentallLease Contract (not unlawful detainerorwrongful 2 5 leviction) Breach of Contract! Warren (06) ty El A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) 2'5 (?0t insurance) El A6019?Negligent Breach of ContracWVarrar'Itymo fraud) 1'2?5 El A6028 cher Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) 1' 2? 5 A6002 5. 6,11 .2 Collections (09) - - a A6012 Other Promissory Notejpollectionspase .. 5.11 A6034 Collections?Case-Purchased Debt (Charged OffConsumer Debt 5. 6. 11 Purchased on or after January 1. 2014) lnsuranceCoverage (18) A6015 Insurance Coverage (notcomplex) 1.2. 5.8 A6009 Contractual Fraud 1.2.3.5 OtherConlract (37) El A6031 Tortiouslnteiference - 1: 1.2.3.5 El A6027 Other Contract Disputemot 1. 2, 3. 8, 9 Eminent . . -. Condemnation (14) A7300 EminentDomain/Condemnation Numberof parcels 2.6 3 Wrongful Eviction (33) El A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 2.6 - . 33 El A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 2.6 1: Other Real Property (26) ET A6032 Quiet Title 2.6 A6060 Other Real Preperty (not eminent domain. landlord/tenant. foreclosure) 2.6 a Unlawful DetagISr-Commercial A6021 Unlawful Detainer?Commercial (not drugsorwrongful eviction) 6.11 (I: . 22' ?New?De?g?ir?es'dem'a' 1:1 A6020 Unlawful Detainer?Residential (not drugs orwrongful eviction) 6.11 - Unlawful Detainer- . E5: Post?Foreclosure(34) El 2.6.11 Unlawful Detainer?Drugs (38) El A6022 Unlawful Detainer?Drugs - -. 2.6.11 In.? -- (Rev 2116) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASGApproved 03-04. AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of 4 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION 2 CASE NUMBER Elson et al. v. Black CApplicable CivilCaseCoverSheet .. 1?Reasons??See,Step3 CategoryNo.' (Check Only'one)? - "j a . Aboves Asset Forfeiture (05) .- A6108 'AssetgForfeiture Case . I _i 2.3Petition re Arbitration (11) El A6115 Petition to CompellCon?rmNacateArbitration 2.5 q, . .5 El A6151 Writ-AdministrativeMandamus 2.8 -3 Writ of Mandate (02) El A6152 Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2 3 .Writ-rOther LimitedCourt- Case . 2 OtherJudicialReview(39) El A6150 OtherWrit [Judicial Review 2.8 AntitrustlT rade Regulation (03) El .A6003 Regulation 1.2.8 0 E, Construction Defect(10) A6007 Construction Defect 1.2.3 1.5 Mass Tort El A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort 1.2.8 5 0 Securities Litigation (28) A6035 Securities Litigation'Case . 1.2.8 2* Toxic Tort . . . '3 Environmental (30) El A6036 Toxrc TortIEnvrronmental 1.2.3.8 2 insurance Coverage Claims . . a. from Complex Case (41) El A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only) 1. 2.5.8 El A6141 Sister State Judgment 2.5.11 ?5 El A6160 AbstractofJudgment 2.6 a Enforcement El A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations) 2. 9 'g OIJUdgmeleO) Cl A6140 AdministrativeAgencyAward (not unpaid taxes) 2,8 3 '5 El A6114 Petition/Certi?catefor EntryofJudgment on Unpaid Tax 2.8 A6112 OtherEnforcementofJudgmentCase 2.8.9 RICO (27) El A6033 Racketeen?ng (RICO) Case 1.2.8 *2 El A6030 Declaratory Relief Only 1.2.8 3 a. Other Complaints El A6040 lnjunctive Relief Only (not domesticlharassment) 2.8 3 mm Specr?ed Above) (42) Cl A6011 ,Other Commercial ComplaintCase (non-tonlnon-complex) 1.2.8 2 8 El A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortlnon-COmplex) 1.2.8 Partnership Corporation . Governance (21) El A6113 Partnership and CorporateGovemanceCase 2.8 A6121 Civil Harassment 2.3.9 A6123 Workplace Harassment 2. 3. 9 q, 5 El A6124 Elder/DependentAdult Abuse Case 2, 3.9 3: Other Petitions (Not - 3 Speci?ed Above) (43) A6190 Election Contest . . . 2 .2 .2 13 A6110 Petition for Change of Name/Change of Gender 2 7 i A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law 2 3 3 r3 A6100 OtherCivil Petition 2?9 dag:- . LACIV 109 (Rev 2716) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 Page 3 of 4 SHORT TITLE: Elson et al. v. Black et al. . CASE NUMBER Step 4' Statement of Reason and Address: Check the appropriate boxes for. the numbers shown under Column for the type of action that you have selected. Enter the address which Is the basis for the filing location, including zip code. (No address required for class attion cases). REASON: 38.0 9.810.811. 642 Sunset Avenue Apt. ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: Venice CA 90291 Step 5: Certification of Assignment: I certify that this case is properly filed in the Central District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. ?Proc., ?392 et seq., and Local Rule Dated: October 19, 2017 (SIGNATUHE OF ATTORNEYIFILING PARTY) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE. 1. Original Complaint or Petition. If ?ling a Complaint. a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 2 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet. Judicial Council form CM-010. 4 Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 02/16). 5" Payment in full of the ?ling fee, unless there is court order for waiver, partial or scheduled payments. 6. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem Judicial Council form 0 if the plaintiff or petitioner is a_ - minor under 18 years of age will be required by CoUrt In order to Issue a summons. 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. vi? . - I n. In; Em" ?14: w: 109 (Rev 2116] LASC-'Approved 03-04 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION . Page 4 of4