THE HONORABLE RICHARD . NOV 0 9 2017 SUPERIOR COURT BY CLERK amela EscamiHa DEPUTY ORIGINAL SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY YUE TING IA, an individual, No. 17?2-27517-4 KNT Plaintiff, .- ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF YUE v. TING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJU CTION YINGQIONG GU, an individual, Defendant. WHEREAS, Plaintiff Yue Ting Jia (?Plaintiff?) ?led a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (?Motion?) against Defendant Yingqiong Gu (?Defendant?); and WHEREAS, the Court considered Plaintiff?s Motion and the evidentiary materials ?led therewith (and Defendant?s opposition), and having heard argument on November 9, 2017, the Court ?nds that a preliminary injunction is warranted. Now, therefore, the Court hereby enters the following ?ndings and conclusions: 1. To obtain injunctive relief, a party must show (1) that it has a clear legal or equitable right, (2) that it has a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right, and (3) that the acts complained of are either resulting in or will result in actual and substantial injury. Tyler Pipe Indus, Inc. v. Dep?t of Revenue, 96 Wn.2d 785, 792, 638 P.2d 1213 (1982); see also RCW 7.40.020. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13110933111??fo 3; 1133333 011 venue, 1.11 PRELIMINARY INIUNCTION 1 . Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 determine whether a party has a clear legal or equitable right, the Court must examine the likelihood of that party ultimately prevailing on the merits. Tyler Pipe, 96 Wn.2d at 793. In making that determination, however, the Court does not adjudicate. the ultimate rights in the lawsuit. Id. Plaintiff has asserted claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional in?iction of emotional distress. For the reasons discussed below, the Court ?nds that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of each of these three claims. 3. A defamation plaintiff must show four essential elements: falsity, an unprivileged communication, fault, and damages. Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wn.2d 473, 486, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981). Defendant has published numerous false claims on WeChat.com and other social media outlets about Plaintiff, including claims that Plaintiff has engaged in money laundering and a Ponzi scheme, attempted to evade Chinese authorities by relocating to the United States, created a purported irrevocable trust to his daughters which is in fact a forgery to protect assets from creditors, and raised money from Chinese-national investors in a purported racist scheme to transfer wealth to non?Chinese individuals. Defendant?s false statements are not privileged and they have been published on platforms that reach hundreds of millions of individuals. These statements are defamatory per se because they injure Plaintiff in his ?business, trade, profession or of?ce,? and are, therefore, actionable without proof of special damages. Maison de France, Ltd. v. Max's 01:17, Inc, 126 Wn. App. 34, 44?45, 108 P.3d 787 (2005). Plaintiff has also shown actual harm to his reputation and the reputation of his company, Faraday Future, including, without limitation, by submitting evidence that Defendant?s statements have placed doubts in the minds of potential investors about the integrity of Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on his defamation claim. 4. Defendant has also invaded Plaintiff privacy in two ways. First, he has intruded on Plaintiff?s seclusion by posting Plaintiff?s address onto the internet, claiming to CORR CRONIN MICHELSON ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2 Seattle, Washington 93154-1051 Tel (206) 625-3600 Fax (206) 625-0900 42have followed and surveilled Plaintiff, and by attempting to access, and claiming to have accessed, documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff has demonstrated, more likely than not, that the purported trust Defendant posted is a forgery and that the signature on the purported document is not Mr. Jia?s signature. Second, Defendant? has placed Plaintiff in a false light, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with Plaintiff?s defamation claim. Plaintiff has suffered damages from these actions in the form of mental distress, in addition to the harm to his general interest in, and right to, privacy. White v. Twp. 0f Winthrop, 128 Wn. App. 588, 597 (2005). Accordingly, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on his invasion of privacy claim. 5. Plaintiff has also shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim for intentional in?iction of emotional distress, which requires him to show extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless in?iction of emotional distress, and (3) actual result to the plaintiff of severe emotional distress.? Christian v. Tohmeh, 191 Wn. App. 709, 735 (2015). Defendant?s conduct is extreme and outrageous. He has falsely accused Plaintiff of fraud and claimed that he is under government investigation, published a forged document purporting to document a trust established to defraud investors, published Plaintiff?s private address, and claims to have followed Plaintiff and obtained documents protected by the attorney?client privilege. His self-professed motivation for his behavior is self-aggrandization and money. Defendant?s conduct is also intentional, as evidenced by the fact that it has continued after the issuance of two prior Temporary Restraining Orders against him. Given the severity of Defendant?s behavior, damage to Plaintiff may be presumed. See Kloepfel v. Bokor, I49 Wn. 2d 192, 202 (2003). However, Plaintiff has submitted evidence that Defendant?s outrageous, false claims, in the face of court orders requiring him to stop his behavior, have in fact caused distress to Plaintiff. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR BAUMGARDNER F000 3? MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 3 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 Accordingly, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. 6. The Court further ?nds that Plaintiff has established that he has a well- grounded fear of immediate invasion of his rights. Plaintiff?s rights have already been invaded, and damage is likely to continue as long as the defamatory posts remain available online, and as long as Defendant continues to post false and misleading information in an effort to harm Plaintiff. 7. The Court further ?nds that Plaintiff has established that Defendant?s acts have resulted in, and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause, actual and substantial injury in the form of harm to Plaintiff?s business, reputation, and goodwill. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions,_therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: I A. Defendant, including his agents, employees, or representatives or anyone acting on their behalf, are required to immediately remove the posts on WeChat.com that contain defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff and/or reveal private information concerning Plaintiff and his family, and which are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 to 9, within twenty-four (24) hours of the issuance of this Order. B. Defendant, including his agents, employees or representatives or anyone acting on their behalf, are required to immediately remove any additional posts made by Defendant on WeChat.com, TouTiao or any other internet location or website that contain defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff and/or reveal private information concerning Plaintiff and his family. C. Defendant, including his agents, employees or representatives or anyone acting on their behalf, are further enjoined from publishing or causing to be published any posts or commentary concerning Plaintiff or his family on WeChat.com, TouTiao.com or any Conn CRONIN MICHELSON ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 8; 13303335 LLP 011 venue, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 4 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 other internet location or website. D. Defendant is enjoined from harassing, contacting, surveilling, or otherwise intruding on Plaintiffs privacy. Defendant is enjoined from contact with or attempting to contact employees or former employees of Plaintiff?s law ?rms, employees or former employees of Faraday Future, Inc., and employees or former employees Leshi Holdings (Beijing) Co., Ltd. or any associated companies. Defendant is further enjoined from obtaining or attempting to obtain private, privileged or confidential information concerning Plaintiff and his family. E. The Court does not require Plaintiff to post a bond at this time. This Order shall remain in effect until 747/57 . Presented By: CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FO GG MOORE LLP By: 3/ Emily Harris Emily J. Harris, WSBA No. 35763 William R. Squires WSBA No. 4976 Michael A. Moore, WSBA No. 27047 Jeff Bone, WSBA No. 43965 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 (206) 625-8600 Phone (206) 625-0900 Fax rsquires@corrcronin.com mmoore@corrcronin.com eharris@corrcronin.com jbone@corrcronin.com Attorneys for Plainti?l?ue Ting Jia ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 5 CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER Foss MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900