SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Nov-06-2017 11:14 am Case Number: CGC-17-562305 Filing Date: Nov-06-2017 10:59 Filed by: NEYL WEBB Image: 06093511 COMPLAINT SHERVIN PISHEVAR VS. MATTHEW RHOADES ET AL 001006093511 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. SUM-100 (?meager-gag? NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (A W80 AL DEMANDADO): Matthew Rhoades, an individual, Joseph Pounder, an individual, De?ners Corp., a business entity, De?ners Public Affairs, at business entity, and DOES 1-10. YOU ARE SHED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL Sher-Vin Pishevar, an individual You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the. information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to ?le a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not. protect you. Your written response must be in proper legai form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts Onlirio Self-Help Center (W your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. if you cannot pay the ?ling fee. ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not tile your response on time. you may lose the case by default, and your wages, rnorrey, and property - may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. if you. do not know an attorney. you may want to call an attorney referral service. it you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal Services from a nonprofit iegal services program. You can locate mess nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site the California Courts Online Self-Halo Center or by contacting your locai court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court?s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. to hem demandado. Si no rosponde denim do 30 dies, to code puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar so version. Lea Ia infomacion a continuacr'on. Tiene 3O DIAS DE CALENDARIO despu?s do cue to an?aguen esta citacion papeles fegales para presenter una reslouesta par ascrifo en esta code tracer qua so cntregua one come a! demandante. Una code 0 ma ?amada teiefdnica no lo protegen. Su respucsra por escritc tiene que carat an tomato legal corrode 31' doses qua proceacn so case en la code. Es posibie qua hays un fonnulan?o qua acted pueda user para cu respuesia; Fuede asters fonnufarios de la coda mas infomracfon an at Centre do Ayud'a do 133 Cortes do California Mww.sucorte.ca.goy), en la bibliotaca do [eyes de su condado en la aorta que le quede mas ccrca. Si no puede pagarla cuota de preseniacidn, pida a! secretario de la aorta que to do on formularr'o dc exencion do pogo do coolers. Si no presents so raspuesta a ticmpo. puede perder a! case porincumplimr?enio la cartels padre earlier so suafdo, dr'nero bienes sin mas Hay ofros requisites fegaies. Es recomendabla que llama a an abogadc immediaramente. Si no conoce a un abogado. puede Ifamar a an servicio de romisidn a abogados. Si no puede pager a on abogado, es posrble qua sample con los requisites para obtener sari/isles legaies gratuitous de on programs de servicios legafes sin ?nes de lucrc. Puade ancontrar estos gmpos sin ?nes do lucro on of side web de Carifornia Legal Services, on a! Centro de Ayuda do [as Cortes do California, poni?ndose en contacto con to code 0 el colegio do abcgadas locales. AWSO: Parley,- ia corfe riene derecho a reclamar Ias cuotas (as costcs exenfos por importer un gravamon score cuaiquier recuperacim do $10,000 6 mos do valor recibida mediante an awordo 0 one concesidn do arbitraje on caso de derecno civil. Tiene que pager or gravamen do to code antes de que la corte pueda desechor of case. NAI URIG The name and address of the court is; . nausea: . (El nombre direccidn de to code es): San Francisco Superior Court d? 03?" 5 5 400 McAllistcr Street 6San Francisco, CA 94102 The name. address. and tetephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or piairiti-ff without an attorney. is: (El nombre, Ia direccidn el Romero de tef?fono do! abogado del demandan'te, 0 def demandante que no tiene obogado, es): Randa A.F. Osman, 865 South Figueroa Street, .1 0th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017, (21 43 -3000 DATE: NOV 03 2017 Cl fk th 0 rl Clerk, by . Deputy (F9008) 3 8 (Secretarfo) (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (fem - . (Para prueba do entrega do esto citation use of formulaic Proof of Service . one, (PO NEYL WEBB NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: ou served 1. as an individual defendant. 2. as the person sued undert fictitious name of (Speci?l): 3, on behaif of (speciM: under: GOP 416.10 (corporation) COP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) GOP 416.70 (conservatae) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) 1: GOP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): 4- Ci by personal delivery on (date): Pm 1 at 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code or'Civit Premature 41220, 465 Judicial Council 0! California SUM MOMS mmfi?caugov sumwioo racy. July 1,2009] 0 FOR COURT USE ONLY "(13m ?air No. 150793) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, LLP . . 865 S. Figueroa St, 10th Floor I Los Angelic, California 90017 rattan-ms no: 213-443-3000 FAX no: 213-443?3 100 San Francisco County 3W 00?? FOR {Neme}: Pishevar San Francisco NOV 0 6 2017 smear menses: 400 McAllister Street . CLERK cmmozupcone San 94102 - BRANCH Mlle BY. Deputy Cletk CASE NAME: Pishcvar v. Matthew Rhoadcs, ct. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designa?on "c?E NUMBER: - 0 5 Unlimited :1 limited '3 Counter '3 Join der 1 7 5 6 2 3 JUDGE: (Amount (Amount demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant exceeds 525.000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: OQIGINAL Items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box belowforthe case type thatbest describes lhiseese: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Mo (22) Bream of mm (06) (Cal. Rules at Court, rules atoll-3.403) Uninsured motorist (4o) Rule 3.740 collections (09) AntitruslITrade regtlation (03) enter memo (Personal lnjuryIProperty Other collections (09) defect (10) Insurance coverage (18) El Mass tort (40) Asbestos (04) Other 0mm (37) Sectritiee litigation (23) Product iability (24) Property I:l Environmentalnonc tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) I: Eminent Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other (23) condemation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort Ci Wane? eviction (33) We" Business mum, Wm practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement or Judgment Civil rights (as) Unlawrul Detainer Enforcement ottuagmem (20) Defamation (13) Comnerdal (31) Miscellaneous Civil complaint Fraud (16) i: Residential (32) R100 (27) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tort (35) 2559? (05) rd (11) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Em etition re: arbitration" awe . . . WW tennination (36) I: Writ of mandate (02) El om? Demon ("at above) (43) :1 Other Women! (15) I: Other judicial review (39) 2. This case CI is 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. [3 Large number of separately represented parties d. El Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel e. I: 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. I: Substantial postjudgmentjudicial supenrision Remedies sought (check all that apply): aE/j monetary CEZI nonmcnetaiy; declaratory or injunctive relief c. IZIpunitive Number of causes of action (specify): 2 This case is El is not a class action suit If there are any known related cases. ?le and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.) Date: 11/6/2017 . .- A. Randa A.F. Osman - Vi ?led via facsimile (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in the action or proceeding (except small dains cases or cases ?led under the Probate Code. Family Code. or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.220.) Failure to ?le may result in sanctions. 0 File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 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. 0 Unless this is a collections case under mle 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistiwl purposes on . 9?91th 10' Pam-rm?, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET 1,30,23,32?. ?33?04, ?mg-gig Cit-010 (REV- 1. INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM-010 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. if you are ?ling a first 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 in item 1. check the more speci?c one. if the case has multiple muses 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 your initial paper. Failure to ?le a cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in a civil case may subject a party. its counsel. or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties In Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is de?ned as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000. exclusive of interest and attorney's fees. arising from a transaction in which property. services, or money was acquired on credit A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages. (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property. or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identi?cation of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-selvice 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 senn'ce 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 tine 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. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Auto (2)-Personal InjuyIProperty Breach of ContractIWarranty (06) Rules of Court Rules moo-3.403) DamageIWrongful Death Breach of RerltaULease Regulation (03) Uninsured Motorist (43) (?rm Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (10) ?so involves an unimyed Of mongful eviction) MESS (40) motorist claim subject to Contractharranty Breach?Seler Securities Litigation (28) arbitration, check airs item Plaintiff (not fraud ormolillence) Tort (30) fumed ofAufo) Negligent Breach of Contract! Insurance Coverage Claims am" OtherBreachofContractANarranty Zo?m?m?i?mm Properly Wrongful Death Tort Collections money allied. open Enforcement of Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Judgment (20) We; property Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment (Out of Mos pm (my, Other Promissory NoteJCollectlons Count!) \M?O?g?l Death Case . Confession of Judgment (non- Product Liability (not asbestos or Insurance Coverage (notprovrslona?y domestic relations) (24) MW) (13) Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice (45) Auto Subrosallon Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice? Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes) Physicians 3. Surgeons Other Contract (37) PelmoNCer??m?on 0! Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment 0" Unpaid Taxes Malpractice om Coma Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PIIPDMID (23) Real Property case Premises Liability (9-9. slip Eminent Miscellaneous Complaint and fa!) Condemnation (14) RICO (27) . intentional Bodily Wrongful Eviction (33) Other (notSPecr?ed (es. assault. vandalism Other Real Property e. ., iet title 26 m? . Intentional Inmwonof ng?ny) :39?in 3360'? Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure "pm? e? on? (m Negligent I Emotional 955 Other Real Pr not eminent . . Other pm domain, ?me or Other Comoros] Complaint Non-PilPolwo (Other) Tort foreclosure) Business TorUUnfair Business Unlawful Detainer Pradice (07) Commercial (31aneous Civil Petition Ruffle (8-9.. disalmmahon. ReSIdentlal (32) pammp and Corporate harassment) (08) drugs. dlecktlusil?emmthemise, om petition (not Defamation (9-9. slander, libel) report as Commercial orResidential) above) (43) (13) Rm" Civil Harassment Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) Workplace (Meme Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (1 1) Elder/Dependent Adult Professional Negligence (25) will of Mandate (02) Am Legal Malpractice Mandamus Elem" Other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on United Court Petition for Name an 95 m? Case Mallet Petition for Relief From Late smog? Tort (35) Writ-Other Limited Court Case Claim Wiron9ful Tm" (36) Other Jsdicial Review (39) omer CM Fem OMEmplovmnt (15) Review of Health Of?cerOrder Notice of Appeal?Labor Commissioner Appea_ls cu-ololnev. July 1. 2007) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ORIGINAL FILED QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART SULLIVAN, LLP San Pram County Court Eric J. Emanuel (Bar No. 102187) ericemanuel@quinnemanuel.com Randa A.F. Osman (Bar No. 150798) randaosman@quinnemanuelcom 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3 100 Attorneys for Plaintiff Shervin Pishevar NOV 0 6 2017 CLERK 9 . WM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Shervin Pishevar, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. Matthew Rhoades, an individual, Joseph Pounder, an individual, De?ners Corp., a business entity, De?ners Public Affairs, a business entity, and DOES 1 - 10, Defendants. Unlimited Jurisdiction COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DEFAMATION PER SE 2. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL [Signed via Facsimile] Plaintiff Shervin Pishevar, by and through his undersigned counsel, brings this action against defendants Matthew Rhoades, Joseph Pounder, De?ners Corp. and De?ners Public Affairs, and DOES 1-10 (collectively ?Defendants?) as follows. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Mr. Pishevar is a successful businessman, investor and entrepreneur. He is the co- founder of Sherpa Capital, which currently has approximately $650 million under management. He also co-founded the transportation startup Hyperloop One, and currently serves as its executive chairman. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that in recent months, Defendants have been retained by competitors or other business adversaries of Mr. Pishevar to orchestrate and implement a malicious smear campaign, apparently designed to incite false, defamatory, and highly damaging chatter and gossip about Mr. Pishevar amongst reporters and strategically targeted individuals in Mr. Pishevar?s professional and personal networks, such as investors in Uber. Defendants have channeled their presidential campaign experience into offering corporate interests ?opposition research??i.e., dirt for cash?on their competitors. This time, Defendants have gone too far; having found no ?dirt? on Mr. Pishevar, Defendants have, upon information and belief, manufactured their own dirt and shoveled it to numerous journalists under the guise of ?research,? in an effort to assassinate Mr. Pishevar?s character and therefore destroy his career. 3. Indeed, true to their name, Defendants have, upon information and belief, sought to ?de?ne? Mr. Pishevar with their lies in order to alienate him from the business community in which he enjoys success and a good reputation, and therefore damage his business interests to the enrichment of the corporate interests Defendants represent. Mr. Pishevar brings this action to end Defendants? repugnant media campaign and hold Defendants accountable for the damage they?ve caused. PARTIES 4. Mr. Pishevar is an individual residing in the State of California, County of San Francisco. 5. Defendant Matthew Rhoades is an individual who, on information and belief, resides in the State of Virginia. 6. Defendant Joseph Pounder is an individual who, on information and belief, resides in the State of Virginia. 7. Defendant De?ners Corp. is a business entity. Plaintiff is informed and believes that De?ners Corp. maintains of?ces in Oakland, California. Mr. Rhoades is the Chief Executive Of?cer of De?ners Corp., and Mr. Pounder is its President and Secretary. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 8. Defendant De?ners Public Affairs is a business entity with its principal place of business in Arlington, Virginia. DPA is a consulting ?rm that provides, among other things, campaign-style opposition research on opponents of its clients. 9. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Mr. Rhoades and Mr. Pounder co? founded Defendant DPA in 2015, and De?ners Corp. in 2017. (De?ners Corp. and DPA will be referred to collectively as ?De?ners.?) 10. Mr. Pishevar does not know the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendant DOES 1 10, inclusive. On information and belief, each of the DOES 1? 10 is a person or entity that has participated, contributed, conspired, aided and abetted, or rati?ed the conduct of Defendants, and has thereby materially contributed to their wrongful acts. Mr. Pishevar will amend his Complaint to identify the true names of these defendants when they are determined, until which time they are sued by their ?ctitious names. 11. On information and belief, each of the Defendants was acting as an agent and co- conspirator with each of the other Defendants in pursuit of the wrongful acts and objectives described in this Complaint. VENUE 12. Venue is proper in this county because Defendants do business in this county, and because a substantial part of the alleged events giving rise to Mr. Pishevar?s claims occurred in this county. Mr. Pishevar has also suffered injury in substantial part in this county. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Mr. Pishevar?s Success in Business and Public Service 13. Mr. Pishevar is a successful entrepreneur, venture capitalist and angel investor. Mr. Pishevar co-founded the transportation startup, Hyperloop One, and serves as its executive chairman. In co?founding Hyperloop, Mr. Pishevar responded to Elon Musk?s challenge to build a high speed transportation system that would be collision free, faster than a plane and consuming less energy. Mr. Pishevar also co-founded Sherpa Capital, a venture capital fund that has invested in companies including Airbnb, Uber, and Munchery. Sherpa Capital currently has some $650 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 0 million under management. As an angel investor, Mr. Pishevar has seeded more than 100 companies. 14. Mr. Pishevar served as a Board Observer at Uber from 2011?2015, and a strategic advisor to Uber from 2013. Mr. Pishevar led the Series of Uber while he was at Menlo Ventures, and later invested in Uber at Sherpa Capital. He served as Managing Director at Menlo Ventures from 2011, and helped lead investments like Uber, Machine Zone, Tumblr, and Warby Parker. Mr. Pishevar also launched Menlo Venture?s seed program, called Menlo Talent Fund, a $20 Million fund that invested in more than 35 early-stage companies. Additionally, Mr. Pishevar served on the board or worked closely with a number of companies, including Machine Zone and Warby Parker. 15. Mr. Pishevar was named for four consecutive years to Forbes Midas List of the top 100 venture capital investors (2014-2017). Mr. Pishevar has generated 73x returns of approximately $6 billion in venture capital investments since 2011. Mr. Pishevar has also been a seed investor in Warby Parker, Dollar Shave Club (acquired by Unilever in 2016) and Postmates, and over 100 seed stage companies. 16. Mr. Pishevar was honored by the United States Government in 2012 as an ?Outstanding American by Choice,? an award which recognizes the achievements of naturalized Americans. This award has been bestowed on fewer than 150 naturalized Americans, including Nobel Peace Prize winner and author, Elie Wiesel. In 2015, President Obama appointed Mr. Pishevar to the J. William Fulbright Scholarship Board. Mr. Pishevar was awarded an Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 2016. Mr. Pishevar serves as one of 10 members of the United Nations Foundation?s Global Entrepreneurs Council, and he also served as Entrepreneurial Ambassador on several US Department of State delegations to the Middle East and Russia. 17. Mr. Pishevar was a keynote speaker at President Obama?s Summit on Entrepreneurship in Algeria. He also was a member of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications policy working group that helped create the Obama Technology and Innovation Plan in 2008. In 2013, Mr. Pishevar was one of the 15 leaders in technology who met COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 0 0 with President Obama to address several technology related issues, including unauthorized intelligence disclosures, healthcare. gov, and the government?s information technology. 18. Mr. Pishevar is an advocate of the Startup Visa Act, which would create a new type of two-year visa available to immigrant entrepreneurs. He is one of the creators of StartUpVisa.com, a website which provides information and builds grassroots support for the legislation. In 2011, Mr. Pishevar testi?ed in favor of startup visas at a hearing held by a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Additionally, Mr. Pishevar is involved with the philanthropies Invisible Children and charityzwater, and has traveled to Africa to volunteer with these organizations. Defendants? Insidious Business Model 19. On information and belief, Defendants have channeled their founders? experiences in running presidential campaigns into a business that seeks to take the bare?knuckle tactics of political races to the business world, and speci?cally, Silicon Valley. There is nothing illegal about an aggressive research and communications campaign conducted by responsible corporate consultants. But, on information and belief, in their apparent zeal to storm Silicon Valley, Defendants have created and executed a business plan to slander targets in the hope that false facts ?nd their way to reporters and ultimately to the public, including Mr. Pishevar?s business associates, clients and investors. 20. On information and belief, Defendants Matthew Rhoades and Joseph Pounder co- founded DPA in about 2015. Mr. Rhoades and Mr. Pounder previously worked together in various Republican campaigns. Both Mr. Pounder and Mr. Rhoades worked in Mitt Romney?s presidential campaign. Mr. Pounder also served as the director of rapid response for John McCain?s campaign, reporting to Jill Hazelbaker, the campaign?s communications director. 21. DPA describes itself as ?the unique consulting ?rm that brings campaign tactics to corporate America . . . De?ners? website boasts that it ?provides clients with comprehensive research services, . . . and creates dossiers on opponents, competitors and COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES . agitators.? One of De?ners? stated objectives in providing such opposition research is to ?inform and in?uence media narratives.? 22. On about June 7, 2017, De?ners announced on its website that it was expanding to Silicon Valley by establishing of?ces in Oakland, explaining that: In the face of outspoken activist groups, aggressive competitors and hostile regulators, Silicon Valley has uniquely pressing demands that require aggressive research and communications campaigns. 23. An article by Recode described Definers? mission as: arm companies with ammunition to attack their corporate rivals, sway their government overseers and shape the public?s opinion on controversial issues.? trumpl The article went on to say that, to De?ners: Silicon Valley is a natural target for their so-called ?oppo? efforts. The tech industry is characteristically hyper-competitive, with boardroom squabbles, takeover attempts, and legal wars over employees and patents and regulations. De?ners hopes to supply some of its future tech clients with the gossip, dirt and intel to win those ?ghts. Given the ?spotlight that is on their industry,? Miller told Recode in an interview, the Valley?s biggest brands should invest more to ensure ?you have positive content pushed out about your company and negative content that?s being pushed out about your competitor, or regulator, or activist groups or activist investors, that are challenging you.? ?There might be some companies that are more willing to engage in that,? Miller said, but ?increasingly, as [Silicon Valley] companies mature, I think they may recognize the need to do that.? trum Defendants? Scheme To Take Down Mr. Pishevar 24. On information and belief, Defendants have employed a pernicious plan to assassinate Mr. Pishevar?s reputation and damage his career by providing news reporters with lies COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 0 and false rumors, under the guise of ?research? designed to entice the media to pursue the lies, including questioning Mr. Pishevar?s clients, associates and members of the business community. 25. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that one or more of his business competitors or opponents enlisted the services of Defendants to orchestrate and implement a smear campaign against him and destroy his professional and personal reputation. 26. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Mr. Rhoades, Mr. Founder and their company, De?ners, are central actors in the smear campaign against him. On information and belief, Mr. Rhoades communicated to a source that opponents of Mr. Pishevar had hired Mr. Rhoades and Mr. Pounder?s ?rm, De?ners, to conduct a smear campaign against Mr. Pishevar and to take him down. 27. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Mr. Rhoades also made numerous false and disparaging statements about Mr. Pishevar to one or more third persons, including that: a. Mr. Pishevar is an agent of the Russian government and a friend of Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and that Hyperloop One's Russian investors was due to Mr. Pishevar being an agent of the Russian government. b. The call for California's secession from the United States was linked to Mr. Pishevar's Russia connections. c. Mr. Pishevar had an incident with a prostitute in Europe. d. Mr. Pishevar had paid money to settle a claim for sexual assault in London. e. Mr. Pishevar had no money and/or that he was unable to raise additional funds, and that he was in essence, a house of cards. f. Mr. Pishevar had raised money for direct investment in Uber but used it to put into his own pockets and Sherpa Capital's pockets. 28. Several associates of Mr. Pishevar informed him that they have in fact been contacted by reporters, eager to break a story about Mr. Pishevar, and ?shing for information on alleged inappropriate conduct. Mr. Pishevar was also informed by two associates that they were contacted by reporters who told them that they heard that Mr. Pishevar ?is the next to go down.? Mr. Pishevar is further informed and believes that some of his former employees are being -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES contacted and questioned about Mr. Pishevar in furtherance of Defendants? scheme to take him down. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants? efforts to smear him include employing the services of an investigator, using a fake name and burner phones, to dig up dirt on him. 29. A reporter recently informed Mr. Pishevar that numerous reporters were aware of rumors that were circulating about Mr. Pishevar, including salacious rumors about alleged sexual misconduct, and a false claim that Mr. Pishevar entered into a settlement agreement concerning the purported sexual misconduct. A colleague of Mr. Pishevar informed him that she was contacted by a reporter in late September of 2017. The reporter informed Mr. Pishevar?s colleague that Mr. Pishevar was viewed among reporters as the next venture capitalist to go down, and that the reporter was working on that. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants fed these and other untrue and disparaging rumors to reporters in furtherance of their smear campaign against him. 30. Mr. Pishevar is further informed and believes that as part of that smear campaign, within the past year, Defendants have made several false and defamatory statements about him, under circumstances in which it was reasonably foreseeable that those defamatory statements would be republished to others, as described below. a. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants falsely stated to a third party that Mr. Pishevar is an agent of the Russian government and a friend of Russian President, Vladimir Putin. b. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants falsely stated to a third party that Mr. Pishevar was involved with political corruption in Azerbaijan. c. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants falsely stated to one or more third parties that Mr. Pishevar had no money and/or that he was unable to raise additional funds, and that he was in essence, a house of cards. (1. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants falsely stated to a third party that Mr. Pishevar had an incident with a prostitute in Europe. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants falsely stated to a third party that Mr. Pishevar had paid money to settle a claim for sexual assault in London. f. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that a reporter contacted a third party and inquired about an alleged incident between Mr. Pishevar and a prostitute in Europe. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants communicated this false rumor to one or more reporters knowing or reasonably foreseeing that the reporter(s) would republish that rumor to others, thereby creating the false impression that Mr. Pishevar had an incident with a prostitute in Europe. g. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants attempted to erode trust in Mr. Pishevar by falsely stating to one or more third parties that Mr. Pishevar had raised money for direct investment in Uber but used it to put into his own pockets and Sherpa Capital's pockets. h. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants falsely stated to a third party in sum and substance: ?Hey, we hear Shervin is the next to go down.? Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants made the statement intending to and in fact creating the false impression that Plaintiff had engaged in illegal or improper activity that would, when revealed, destroy Mr. Pishevar?s reputation in the business community, disrupt his business relationships, and cause injury to Mr. Pishevar. i. Mr. Pishevar is further informed and believes that Defendants planted a rumor that Mr. Pishevar had engaged in misconduct or other inappropriate behavior, as part of Defendants? scheme to smear Mr. Pishevar?s reputation and disrupt his business relationships. j. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants, through intermediaries, made statements to one or more employees of Mr. Pishevar, claiming that the employee?s own reputation would be tarnished and the employee?s ability to ?nd work would be diminished by continuing employment with Mr. Pishevar. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants made false and defamatory statements to disparage Mr. Pishevar?s reputation, and Defendants did so knowing or intending them to be republished to others. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 31. The statements identi?ed in paragraphs 27 and 30 (the ?Defamatory Statements?) are false and, upon information and belief, wholly fabricated by Defendants. On information and belief, Defendants had no basis whatsoever for making the Defamatory Statements and knew or should have known that the statements were false. On information and belief, Defendants conducted no diligence to verify the Defamatory Statements. On information and belief, Defendants made the Defamatory Statements with the intent to cause Mr. Pishevar grave and substantial injury to his reputation and career. 32. On information and belief, by disseminating (either directly or through intermediaries) the Defamatory Statements to reporters and others about Mr. Pishevar, Defendants have caused a feeding frenzy among reporters seeking to be the ?rst to a sensational or scandalous story about Mr. Pishevar. On information and belief, this has resulted in upwards of 20 or 25 reporters contacting associates, investors, colleagues, clients and/or employees of Mr. Pishevar and questioning them about the defamatory statements or otherwise attempting to dig up dirt about his personal or professional life. 33. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that Defendants knew the stories they were spreading about him were not true, or they failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain their truthfulness. Rather, on information and belief, they sought to bene?t their clients, Mr. Pishevar?s business opponents, by destroying his reputation and disrupting his ability pursue his business ventures. 34. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that one or more investors failed to invest in Mr. Pishevar?s business ventures and passed on opportunities that they otherwise would have participated in, due to the smear campaign led by Mr. Rhoades, Mr. Founder and De?ners, all to Mr. Pishevar?s detriment. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation Against All Defendants! 35. Mr. Pishevar realleges and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES set forth above, Defendants made to one or more third parties false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Pishevar. The defamatory statements include those described in paragraphs 27 and 30 above. 37. The Defamatory Statements are defamatory per se. The Defamatory Statements falsely impute that Mr. Pishevar engaged in criminal conduct, as well as other misconduct or character defects, such as alleged incident with a prostitute, association with corruption, and acting as an agent of Russia with ties to Vladimir Putin, which statements cause, by their natural consequence, actual damage. The Defamatory Statements also directly injured Mr. Pishevar in respect of his of?ce, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disquali?cation in those respects which his of?ce and occupation peculiarly requires, and/or by imputing something with reference to his of?ce, profession, trade or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its pro?ts. The Defamatory Statements subjected Mr. Pishevar to hatred, distrust, contempt, disgrace, scorn, and ridicule among considerable and respectable segments of the community. 38. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally made the Defamatory Statements with actual malice, and with knowledge of, and/or reckless disregard for the falsity of those statements. 39. The Defamatory Statements have proximately caused and continue to cause Mr. Pishevar to suffer substantial injuries and damages including, but not limited to, tarnishment of reputation, lost business opportunities, humiliation and, embarrassment, shame, and damage to business, trade, profession, and occupation. 40. As a further proximate cause of the Defamatory Statements, Mr. Pishevar has suffered special damages, including lost business opportunities and damage to his business, trade, profession and occupation, in an amount to be proven at trial. 41. Upon information and belief, Defendants made the Defamatory Statements of and concerning Mr. Pishevar with the speci?c intent to cause harm to Mr. Pishevar, and did so willfully and with malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which raises -11- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 0 the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences, justifying an award of punitive damages. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF gIntentional Interference With Prospective Economic Relations -- Against All Defendants) 42. Mr. Pishevar realleges and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein. 43. Mr. Pishevar has prospective economic relations with certain prospective clients, including investors in one or more of his businesses. Such relationships have or had substantial likelihood of economic bene?t for Mr. Pishevar. 44. On information and belief, Defendants have knowledge of Mr. Pishevar?s prospective economic relations with these prospective clients. 45. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally interfered with these prospective economic relationships, including by making false, defamatory and disparaging statements about Mr. Pishevar. 011 information and belief, Defendants orchestrated and implemented a scheme to ?bring down? Mr. Pishevar by planting false rumors with reporters and others that called into question Mr. Pishevar?s integrity and business acumen. These rumors included the Defamatory Statements, including the false assertion that Mr. Pishevar lined his own pockets and Sherpa Capital?s with money that he had raised for direct investment in Uber, and the false claim that he was unable to raise funds and that he was out of funds himself. Mr. Pishevar is informed and believes that, by planting these false and disparaging stories with reporters and others, Defendants knew or reasonably believed that these individuals would contact business associates, prospective clients and others in the business community concerning the false claims, thereby damaging Mr. Pishevar?s reputation, and disrupting his relationship with existing and potential clients. On information and belief, these acts by Defendants were designed to disrupt Mr. Pishevar?s prospective economic relationships. 46. On information and belief, as a direct and proximate result of the intentional interference described above, Mr. Pishevar?s prospective economic relations with certain -12.. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES prospective clients has been disrupted, interrupted completely, or made more dif?cult or costly to achieve. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional interference with prospective economic relations by Defendants, Mr. Pishevar has suffered loss, damage and injury in an amount to be proven at trial. 48. On information and belief, Defendants? intentional interference with prospective economic relations as described above was willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, and/or conducted without regard to Mr. Pishevar?s rights. Accordingly, Defendants are liable for punitive damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Mr. Pishevar respectfully prays for judgment and relief as follows: 1. An award for presumed, actual, compensatory, special, and consequential damages according to proof; 2. An award for punitive damages to the maximum extent permitted by law; 3. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to publish the Defamatory Statements; 4. An award of all costs and fees in this action, including attorneys? fees and pre- and post-judgment interest; and 5. All other such relief as this Court deems just and proper. -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR URY TRIAL p?n Mr. Pishevar hereby demands a jury trial of all issues which are triable to a jury. DATED: November 6, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART SULLIVAN, LLP . Randa AF Osman Attorneys for Plaintiff Shervin Pishevar -14- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES