Case 8:17-cv-02945-SDM-AAS Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID 153 FILED 17 OCT 27 PM 2:20 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED CASE NUMBER: 17-2-27517-4 KNT Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID 154 another facility in Hanford, California in order to employ hundreds of workers for mass production Of its electric cars. Defendant has been publishing defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff on social media platforms and to journalists, in an effort to harm Mr. Jia?s reputation and sow distrust among potential investors and employees of Faraday while Mr. Jia is in the process of trying to raise capital to fund Faraday?s continued growth. These defamatory statements include claims that Plaintiff has engaged in money laundering, cheated investors as part of a Ponzi scheme, attempted to evade Chinese authorities by relocating to the United States, created shelters to protect assets from creditors, and raised money from Chinese-national investors in a purported racist scheme to transfer wealth to non-Chinese individuals. The publication of these false statements has harmed Mr. Jia?s and Faraday?s reputation at a critical time for the company as it continues to raise capital needed to begin mass production of its vehicles. Defendant has also attempted to access, and has claimed to have procured, privileged documents from Mr. Jia?s California attorneys. Defendant has further followed Mr. Jia while he goes about his daily activities, including investor meetings Mr. Jia attends and the Los Angeles-area restaurants he has visited. Finally, Defendant has identified and publicized sensitive personal information, including Mr. Jia?s current address and photos of his family. Plaintiff, his companies and their employees stand to suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is not enjoined from continuing this course Of conduct. Defendant has not only shown disregard for the well-being of Mr. Jia and Faraday?s employees, but has previously disregarded an order from another court enjoining his harassing, harmful activities. In late September of this year, Mr. Jia obtained a temporary restraining order from a California court due to Defendant?s behavior. Nevertheless, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2 BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID 155 Defendant continued to publish defamatory statements in the face of that court order. The California court declined to extend the order due to personal jurisdiction concerns, as Defendant is a resident of Washington. This Court faces no such issues. Accordingly, Mr. ia seeks a TRO that provides the following relief: (1) Requiring Defendant to immediately remove Speci?cally-identi?ed posts on WeChat.com and/or other internet sites to be identi?ed that contain defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff. (2) Enjoining Defendant from publishing further defamatory statements concerning Mr. Jia. (3) Enjoining Defendant from harassing, contacting, surveilling, or otherwise intruding upon Plaintiff?s privacy. II. FACTS A. Mr. ia and Faraday Mr. Jia is a Chinese citizen, and is the Chairman and founder of Faraday Future, Inc. (?Faraday?), a privately owned Gardena, California company with nearly 1,000 employees in California, and several hundred million dollars invested, that is committed to developing and marketing electric automobiles. See Declaration of Yue Ting Jia in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (?Jia 11 2.1 Over the past two years, Mr. Jia has been actively trying to raise capital for Faraday. Faraday is currently in an important transition period in which it is attempting to bring an electric automobile to market, and it requires new capital to accomplish that goal. araday?s product, FF91, has attracted a great deal of attention since its debut at the 2017 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and it purchased a large premises in Las Vegas and has 1 Mr. Jia is also the founder of Leshi Holdings (Beijing) Co., Ltd. a privately owned multinational company based in Beijing, China that develops and markets consumer electronic products and distributes entertainment over the Internet. Id. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER Focc MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625?0900 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 3 Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID 156 leased another facility in Hanford, California in order to employ hundreds of workers for mass production of its electric cars. Id, 11 19. As is the case for many other start-ups as they raise capital (think Elon Musk and Tesla or Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook), Mr. Jia?s reputation and Faraday?s success are interconnected. B. Defendant?s Defamatory, Harassing Activities. Starting in July 2017, Defendant has repeatedly posted on WeChat.com (the most popular social media platform in China and accessible in the world with nearly 900 million active users at the end of 2016, similar to WhatsApp and Facebook) claims that Mr. ia is trying to defraud creditors, investors, employees, and government authorities. 1d. 7, 11. These posts include false allegations that Mr. Jia is attempting to ?ee China, his home country where he has his permanent residence; and (ii) has engaged in a years-long scheme to defraud Chinese investors to enrich non?Chinese executives and employees in the United States. Id. 11 11. Defendant has further claimed that he has attempted to obtain, and has obtained, privileged documents prepared by Mr. Jia?s California attorneys. Id. 11 9. Finally, Defendant?s posts indicate that he has been following Mr. Jia in California as Mr. Jia goes about his daily activities, and he has posted personal information about Mr. Jia, including the address of the residence he uses while he is in the United States and photographs of his family. Id. 11 4. The following are only some of the examples of the false, defamatory, and harassing statements published by Defendant: - On July 22, 2017, Gu published a post on WeChat titled, ?Why Do We Call Yueting Jia A [Liar]?? In that post, Gu claimed that Mr. Jia kept ?telling new stories? and used ?new [investors?] money in old debt? in a ?Ponzi scheme.? Gu also compared Mr. Jia to Bernie Madoff (the convicted investment manager) and Enron. He concluded his post by observing that Madoff? 5 ?personal property was confiscated by the court for auctions - even his underwear? while Mr. Jia seems ?to be living a comfortable life in [my] luxury house in the Id, 11 12 and Exhibit 5. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING CORR CRONIN MICHELSON ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 4 BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID 157 On August 25, 2017, Gu published another post titled, ?Exclusive. Two Things Yueting Jia is doing in the Gu claimed to have ?credible local sources? and reviewed ?relevant materials in and stated that based on those sources he had learned that Mr. ia deliberately misled investors by sending out ?false information? about ?negotiating for funding in Hong Kong? and been trying to ?obtain Green Card as soon as possible.? The rest of Gu?s post consists of a derogatory and false allegation that Mr. Jia had ?no intention of going back to China? and had been trying to establish an irrevocable trust to avoid paying ?a tribute to Uncle Sam.? Gu also wrote, ?Dear creditors, have you ?gured out? Whether it?s in China or in the US ?Accountant Jia? always gets his way.? 161., 11 13 and Exhibit 6. On September 14, 2017, Gu wrote that Mr. Jia ?can?t love? suppliers, employees, or investors of and had been trying to hide assets from creditors to avoid paying them. 1611, 1] 14 and Exhibit 3. On September 21, 2017, Gu published a post titled ?Yueting Jia Uses ?Innocent Investors? Money? To Invest In Automobiles In US, Risks Becoming Empress Dowager Ci Xi In The Eyes of the Caucasian People.? In this post, Gu claimed that Mr. Jia ?used the money obtained? from ?Innocent Investors and gave it to the Caucasians, asking nothing in return.? Gu also claimed he interviewed a former Faraday employee, and alleged that at Faraday Mr. Jia hired ?Caucasian senior executives? who only ?need Chinese money? from ?dumb Chinese? investors. The post further asserted that at Faraday Mr. Jia sought to hire engineers from ?third world? countries like ?China, India and Iran? and favored ?Iranians and Indians? to Chinese engineers. Id. 1] 15 and Exhibit 7. On September 29, 2017 Gu published yet another false article entitled ?The US Government Starts to Investigate Multibillionaire Hongbin Sun and Yueting Jia.? In addition to falsely stating that Mr. ia was under some sort of investigation, the article falsely claimed that Mr. Jia was involved in a transaction that could cause investor assets to ??ow out of China into the US in order to repurchase back the assets and stocks of the other company. Everything is reasonable and legal, and it is just that at the end the innocent investors will pay for everything.? Id, 1] 16 and Exhibit 8. Defendant?s harassing activities have not been limited to publishing false statements about Mr. Jia. Defendant has gone further and obtained, or attempted to obtain, privileged information from Mr. Jia?s attorneys, followed Mr. Jia while he goes about his daily activities in California, and published personal information about Mr. ia and his family. For example: CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 5 Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID 158 Defendant publicized the address and photographs of the residence Mr. Jia uses while he is in the United States for business. Speci?cally, on July 15, 2017, Defendant published a post titled, Tour Around Yueting Jia?s House In America,? in which Defendant disclosed prOperty records for a residence in which he claimed Mr. Jia lives. In that same post, Defendant also claimed Mr. Jia ?had Shanghai cuisine on July 12 evening? in Rancho Palos Verdes. Defendant implied that he was surveilling Mr. Jia on July 12 at the restaurant; the post included the comment, ?He looked good at that time.? Defendant concluded with the question, ?He has lived in his own way, and what about you?? Id. 7?8 and Exhibit 2. On September 14, 2017, Defendant wrote in a post titled, ?Who Does Yueting Jia Love Exactly?? that he had obtained, from an undisclosed source who worked at a law ?rm that Mr. Jia had retained, copies of an irrevocable trust created for the bene?t of Mr. Jia?s two daughters. In this post, Defendant included a copy of the irrevocable trust that purports to be signed by Mr. Jia and transfers funds ?from Farad[ay] Company?s capital pool? to his children. The document is a forgery and Defendant has falsely claimed to have access to a confidential source in a Los Angeles law ?rm Mr. Jia has retained. Id. ii 9 and Exhibit 3. After Defendant posted a copy of the forged, purported irrevocable trust, a journalist from sina.com, an in?uential Chinese website, contacted Defendant and interviewed him regarding, among other things, his sources of information about Mr. Jia. The sina.com article, titled ?Living Trust Whistle-Blower: No Personal Enmity Between Yueting Jia And I And No Fear Of Being Sued,? was published on September 15. It repeated Defendant?s claims that Mr. Jia had ?hired a couple of law ?rms in Los Angeles and had them dra the above-mentioned, forged irrevocable trust. Id. 11 10 and Exhibit 4. The Effects of Gu?s Harassing Conduct and Allegations Defendant?s WeChat posts have been re-circulated on other social media platforms and by major media outlets, and have negatively impacted Mr. Jia and his family. Mr. Jia, his wife, and various Faraday employees have received queries from friends, suppliers, potential investors, and acquaintances about whether Defendant?s allegations are true. Id., 17. daughters) substantial emotional distress. Defendant?s posts have also caused Mr. and his family (including his wife and Id., 11 18. Mr. Jia has spent his entire career building companies that employ thousands around the world; the suggestion that he is running a Ponzi scheme to defraud investors and engaging in a racist attempt to divert funds MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY IN JUNCTION - 6 CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 COOK-ION Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID 159 from Chinese investors to non?Chinese executives is personally offensive and harassing, and impairs Mr. ia?s ability to conduct business and build relationships with employees, investors, and others. Id. Indeed, as Chairman and founder of Faraday, Mr. Jia?s personal reputation is closely connected to the company?s ability to raise capital. Id, 11 19. Without sufficient capital, Faraday, and its nearly 1,000 California?based employees, face serious risks. Id. Defendant?s activities also invade Mr. Jia?s privacy. Defendant has attempted to obtain information protected by the attorney-client privilege, has posted information about Mr. Jia?s address, and has followed Mr. Jia while he conducts daily activities in California. Defendant?s actions have cause Mr. Jia concern that he, or someone who reads and believes his false allegations, could try to locate him and his family and threaten their safety. Id, 1] 20. D. Defendant?s Continued Harassment Despite Efforts To Convince Him To Cease. Compounding the seriousness of Defendant?s activities is the fact that he appears determined to continue them, even in the face of court orders. Mr. Jia has previously tried to contact Defendant through counsel he retained in China to ask that Defendant refrain from his harassing conduct and postings, but Defendant has refused to stop. Id, 11 21. Mr. Jia initiated litigation against Defendant in California and actually obtained a temporary restraining order against him, but again Defendant refused to stop. 1d. On October 2, two days after the California court issued the temporary restraining order, Defendant published a post on WeChat in which he referred to Mr. Jia as ?Accountant ia? and claimed?falsely? that Mr. Jia was spending funds owed to ?innocent investors and suppliers? on ?paid commentators? to attack Defendant. 1d,, Exhibit 9. Defendant repeated the false accusations the California court had restrained, including that Mr. Jia was trying to get a ?green card? on a ?fast turnaround,? was ?eeing to the US, and trying to cheat ?innocent investors in China.? MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING CORR CRONIN MICHELSON ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 7 BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98 154~1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 AWN Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID 160 Id. The California court thereafter declined to extend the temporary restraining orders due to personal jurisdiction concerns, as Gu is not a resident of California. As a result, Mr. Jia, his family, and Faraday are currently without any protection from Gu?s stream of false statements. Id., 11 22. Defendant?s endgame appears to be a desire to extract a monetary payment from Mr. Jia to cease his harassing activities. In a WeChat post addressing a request by another Chinese businessman to remove false and harassing posts about him, Gu claimed he demanded 1.26 million Chinese RMB (approximately $190,000) to remove his posts. Id., Exhibit 10. In short, unless this Court acts to protect Mr. Jia, or Mr. ia pays Defendant an exorbitant sum of money, it is clear that Defendant will continue with his harassing and defamatory activities. 111. ARGUMENT A. Legal Standard To obtain injunctive relief, a party must show that he has a clear legal or equitable right, (2) that he 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 to him.? 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. The granting or withholding of an injunction ?is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court to be exercised according to the circumstances of each case.? Washington Fed ?n of State Employees, Council 28, v. State, 99 Wn.2d 878, 887, 665 P.2d 1337 (1983). B. Mr. Jia Has A Clear Legal or Equitable Right. To determine whether a party has a clear legal or equitable right, a 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 CORR CRONIN MICHELSON PLAINTIFF ?8 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 8 BAUMGARDNER Focc MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625?0900 beCase Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID 161 ultimate rights in the lawsuit. Id. Here, Mr. Jia is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional in?iction of emotion distress against Defendant. The tort of defamation ?vindicates a citizen?s interest in his or her good reputation.? 16A Wash. Prac., Tort Law and Practice 20:1 (4th ed.) 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, 1088 (1981). The falsity of numerous statements posted to WeChat and circulated in the media by Defendant is discussed above. Among other things, Defendant has falsely claimed on WeChat posts that Mr. Jia has engaged in money laundering, cheated investors as part of a Ponzi scheme, attempted to evade Chinese authorities by relocating to the United States, created shelters to protect assets from creditors, and raised money from Chinese-national investors in a purported racist scheme to transfer wealth to non-Chinese individuals. These false allegations constitute defamation per se. See Maison de France, Ltd. v. Mais Ouif, Inc, 126 Wash. App. 34, 44?45 (2005) defamatory publication is libelous per se . . . if it (1) exposes a living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse, or (2) injures him in his business, trade, profession or office?). Defendant?s false statements are not privileged, and have caused actual harm to Mr. ia?s reputation and hindered his ability to raise funds for Faraday during a critical time for that company as it attempts to bring its vehicles to the marketpublic figure, so is not required to show actual malice. See Valdez?Zoni?ek v. Eastmont Sch. Dist., 154 Wash. App. 147, 159 (2010) (?To be considered a public ?gure, courts usually require the plaintiff to voluntarily seek to influence the resolution of public issues?). But even if he were a public figure, Defendant has clearly acted with malice. defendant acts with malice when he knows the statement is false or recklessly disregards its probable falsity.? Due an v. Le, 177 Wash. 2d 649, 669 (2013). Defendant?s allegations are entirely baseless, and his actions have already been enjoined once by a court. The fact that Defendant has continued to publish false allegations in the face of that court order at the very least indicates that he has acted with reckless disregard. Moreover, the fact that Defendant is apparently engaged in a scheme to extract a monetary payment from Mr. ia further provides evidence of malice. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 9 Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID 162 Defendant?s activities have also invaded Mr. Jia?s right to privacy, as they are an intrusion on Mr. Jia?s seclusion and have placed Mr. ia in a false light. To succeed on a claim for invasion of privacy through intrusion on seclusion, Mr. Jia must show the Defendant deliberately intruded; (2) into the plaintiffs solitude, seclusion, or private affairs; (3) in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.? Armijo v. Yakima HMA, LLC, 2012 WL 2576624, at *2 (ED. Wash. July 3, 2012). Defendant has clearly done so, in numerous ways. He has attempted to gain, and claims to have gained, documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, ?perhaps the most sacred of all legally recognized privileges.? United States v. Bauer, 132 F.3d 504, 510 (9th Cir. 1997). He has further located and published the address that Mr. Jia uses when he is in the United States for business. These deliberate intrusions are highly offensive to any reasonable person. Defendant?s false statements on WeChat and elsewhere have further placed Mr. Jia in a false light for the same reasons that they constitute defamation, plus the fact that they have cause Mr. Jia and his family mental distress. See Eastwood v. Cascade Broad. Co., 106 Wash. 2d 466, 471 (1986) (?The theoretical difference between [defamation and invasion of privacy by placing plaintiff in a false light] is that a defamation action is primarily concerned with compensating the injured party for damage to reputation, while an invasion of privacy action is primarily concerned with compensating for injured feelings or mental suffering. The two torts overlap, however, when the statement complained of is both false and defamatory. In such a case the plaintiff can proceed upon either theory?). In short, Mr. Jia is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, and thus has demonstrated a clear legal and equitable right to relief. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 10 BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID 163 C. Mr. Jia Has a Well-Grounded Fear of Immediate Invasion of His Rights. Mr. Jia?s rights have already been invaded, and damage is continuing as long as the defamatory posts remain available online and Defendant continues to publish additional false posts on WeChat. Mr. Jia?s well-grounded fear is also evidenced by the fact that Defendant did not refrain from his activities even when subject to a California court order, and the fact that Defendant has boasted about previously engaging in a similar campaign against another Chinese businessman in exchange for a monetary payoff. D. Mr. Jia will Suffer Actual and Substantial Injury if Defendant Is Not Enjoined. A publication is defamatory per se (actionable without proof of special damages) if it exposes a living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or to deprive him of the bene?t of public confidence or social intercourse, or (2) injures him in his business, trade, profession or office.? Life Designs Ranch, Inc. v. Sommer, 191 Wn. App. 320, 328, 364 P.3d 129 (2015), review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1022 (2016). Such is the case with respect to the claims of Mr. Jia. But even if Defendant?s statements were not defamatory per 56, they have still caused Mr. Jia actual and substantial harm. As explained above, injury to Mr. Jia?s reputation caused by Defendant?s publications and the associated questions raised in the minds of actual or potential investors who read or hear about Defendant?s false allegations has harmed Mr. Jia?s and Faraday?s ability to raise capital in a critical time for the company. If Defendant is not enjoined from his harassing behavior, lasting damage could result to Faraday and its 1,000 employees. Defendant?s actions in surveilling Mr. Jia, claiming to have accessed privileged information, and posting personal information about Mr. Jia, have also caused Mr. Jia and his family mental and emotional distress. Defendant?s false claims that Mr. Jia has committed a variety of crimes and torts has amplified his mental and emotional distress. In CORR CRONIN MICHELSON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154?1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 4; Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID 164 short, Defendant?s actions have caused, and continue to cause, Mr. ia actual and substantial injury. IV. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, with immediate effectDATED this 23rd day of October, 2017. CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP By: s/ Emile. 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 Email: eharris@corrcronin.com rsquires@corrcronin.com mmoore@corrcronin.com jbone@corrcronin.com Damian J. Martinez (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted) LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 612-8900 Phone (213) 612-3773 Fax Email: Attorneys for Plaintiff Yue Ting Jia 5 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 12 1001 Fourth Avenue, suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 .Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID 165 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 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER YINGQIONG GU, an individual, Defendant. WHEREAS, Plaintiff Yue Ting ia (?Plaintiff?) ?led a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (?Motion?) against Defendant Yingqiong Gu (?Defendant?); and WHEREAS, the Court considered Plaintiff?s Motion and the evidentiary materials filed therewith, [and Defendant?s opposition], and having heard argument on October 23, 2017, the Court ?nds that a temporary restraining order is warranted to prevent ongoing harm to Plaintiff until such time as a preliminary injunction is heard in this matter. The Court ?nds that Plaintiffs? Motion is well taken and the Motion is GRANTED, as set forth below. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 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 CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 1 Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID 166 (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 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 other internet location or website. D. Defendant is enjoined from harassing, contacting, surveilling, or otherwise intruding on Plaintiff?s privacy. Defendant is enjoined from contact with or attempting to contact employees or former employees of Plaintiff 3 law ?rms, employees or former employees of Faraday Future, Inc., and employees or former employees Leshi Holdings (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Defendant is further enjoined from obtaining or attempting to obtain private, privileged or con?dential information concerning Plaintiff and his family. This Order shall remain in effect until ruling is entered on Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, which is noted for hearing on IT IS SO ORDERED this day of October, 2017. Superior Court Judge/Commissioner CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154?1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 2 Case Document 9-1 Filed 12/15/17 Presented By: CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP By: 5/ Emily Harris William R. Squires WSBA No. 4976 Michael A. Moore, WSBA No. 27047 Emily J. Harris, WSBA No. 35763 Jeff Bone, WSBA No. 43965 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 (206) 625-8600 Phone (206) 625-0900 Fax Email: rsquires@corrcronin.com mmoore@corrcronin.com eharris@corrcronin.com jbone@corrcronin.com Damian J. Martinez (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted) LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 612-8900 Phone (213) 612-3773 Fax Email: Attorneys for Plaintiff we Ting Jia ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 3 Jia 00001 hj23bn32f2 Page 16 of 16 PageID 167 CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG MOORE LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900