Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 11 1 5 SPERTUS, LANDES & UMHOFER, LLP Matthew Donald Umhofer (SBN 206607) Ezra D. Landes (SBN 253052) 1990 South Bundy Dr., Suite 705 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 826-4700 Facsimile: (310) 826-4711 matthew@spertuslaw.com ezra@spertuslaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 10 11 MATHEW HENLEY, an individual; NICHOLAS GICINTO, an individual; EDWARD RUSSO, an individual; and JACOB NOCON, an individual, 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:18-cv-2244 COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL v. RICHARD A. JACOBS, an individual, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Come now Plaintiffs Mathew Henley, Nicholas Gicinto, Edward Russo, 20 and Jacob Nocon (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and complain, aver and allege as 21 follows: I. 22 23 1. INTRODUCTION Defendant Richard A. Jacobs spuriously sullied the good reputations 24 of the Plaintiffs in a failed attempt to insulate himself from the consequences of 25 his own conduct. After he was demoted for underperforming in his job at Uber 26 Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and caught stealing company documents, Jacobs 27 sent an email that contained a litany of lies about his colleagues, the Plaintiffs. 28 The fabrications about the Plaintiffs in that email were no small matter—Jacobs COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 2 of 11 1 falsely accused Plaintiffs of engaging in a pattern of illegal and unauthorized 2 misconduct. Jacobs’s lies about the Plaintiffs were later broadcast to the world 3 when his email was disclosed in a high-profile civil lawsuit involving Uber. 4 2. Before Jacobs lied about them, the Plaintiffs were admired 5 professionals with sterling reputations in both their fields and at Uber. Jacobs’s 6 falsehoods blighted the Plaintiffs and their standing at Uber, sabotaged their 7 employment prospects, and torpedoed their future earnings. Plaintiffs seek 8 damages commensurate with the injuries Jacobs’s mendacious and self-serving 9 conduct visited upon them. II. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 10 11 12 13 14 3. 4. Plaintiff Nicholas Gicinto is an individual domiciled in the State of Missouri. 5. 16 Virginia. 17 6. 19 Plaintiff Mathew Henley is an individual domiciled in the State of California. 15 18 THE PARTIES Plaintiff Edward Russo is an individual domiciled in the State of Plaintiff Jacob Nocon is an individual domiciled in the State of California. 7. Defendant Richard A. Jacobs is an individual domiciled in the State 20 of Washington. During the time period relevant to the events alleged in this 21 Complaint, Jacobs resided and worked in this district. III. 22 23 8. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Subject matter jurisdiction over this action is founded upon 28 24 U.S.C. § 1332. Complete diversity exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant. 25 Plaintiffs are citizens of California, Missouri and Virginia, while Defendant is a 26 citizen of Washington. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 27 $75,000. 28 2. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 3 of 11 1 9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because 2 Defendant engaged in the underlying conduct in California while working for 3 Uber in California, and therefore had sufficient minimum contacts with 4 California to support jurisdiction. Additionally, the defamatory statements at 5 issue were made to and about California residents and concerned activities in 6 California. 7 8 10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district. IV. 9 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 10 11. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At the time of these events, Jacobs and the Plaintiffs were 11 employees at Uber, a global ridesharing network serving more than 550 cities 12 around the world. 13 12. Beginning in or about the summer of 2015, Plaintiff Mathew Henley 14 was employed as Uber’s Director of Global Threat Operations, which is part of 15 Uber’s Security group. Threat Operations was divided into different teams, 16 including the Strategic Services Group (“SSG”) and Marketplace Analytics 17 (“MA”). Threat Operations also included an Investigations team, of which 18 Gicinto, Nocon, and Russo were members. 19 13. Beginning in or about March 2016, Plaintiff Gicinto was hired by 20 Uber and is the manager of the SSG. Beginning in or about the summer of 2016, 21 Plaintiff Edward Russo was hired by Uber as a Senior Risk and Threat Analyst 22 for the SSG, and Plaintiff Jacob Nocon began working for Uber as a Senior 23 Intelligence Analyst for the SSG. Russo and Nocon are supervised by Gicinto. 24 14. Defendant Jacobs was hired by Uber as Manager of Global 25 Intelligence in March 2016. The Global Intelligence group was part of Global 26 Threat Operations, which was overseen by Plaintiff Henley during Jacobs’s 27 employment with Uber. As Director of Global Threat Operations, Plaintiff 28 Henley managed and oversaw the work of Jacobs. 3. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 4 of 11 1 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Jacobs failed to perform adequately in his role, and Henley and 2 others considered and discussed terminating Jacobs. Instead, Henley and his 3 supervisors decided to give Jacobs a review that reflected his shortcomings and 4 demote him rather than terminate him. 5 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 15. 16. In or around February 2017, Jacobs received a performance review 6 from Plaintiff Henley. Although Jacobs received a rating of “Solid” for his 7 performance, Jacobs’s trajectory was rated as “Below Baseline.” Henley gave 8 Jacobs a negative performance review because Jacobs’s job included anticipating 9 threats of violence against Uber’s drivers and employees, and Henley believed 10 that Jacobs was not adequately anticipating such threats, and had failed in this 11 regard on multiple occasions. Henley had previously received other negative 12 feedback throughout the company, including from other leadership. 13 17. Following the February 2017 performance review, Jacobs was 14 demoted—his role was changed from a manager to an individual contributor, and 15 his job title became a senior analyst for the SSG. Jacobs, who previously was on 16 par with Plaintiff Gicinto, began reporting to Gicinto. 17 18. Jacobs resented the demotion. He regularly expressed his 18 dissatisfaction to Henley, Gicinto, and others, and repeatedly asked to be restored 19 to a managerial role. Those requests were rebuffed. His performance did not 20 improve and continued to decline in his new role. 21 19. At no point before or during this time did Jacobs express any 22 concerns about the propriety or legality of the conduct of SSG, MA, the 23 Investigations team or Plaintiffs, or object to any of the efforts undertaken by 24 SSG, MA, the Investigations team or Plaintiffs on behalf of Uber. 25 20. On or about April 14, 2017, Plaintiff Henley and Uber’s security 26 team noticed some unusual activity: documents were being exfiltrated outside 27 Uber’s firewall. Upon investigation, it was determined that Jacobs was 28 4. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 5 of 11 1 surreptitiously moving confidential company materials to his private email 2 account. 3 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Henley acted immediately, consulting with senior management and 4 human resources about Jacobs conduct and preparing to terminate Jacobs. As a 5 prelude to his termination, on or about April 14, 2017, Jacobs received a notice 6 from Uber’s human resources department that he would be interviewed in 7 relation to an investigation concerning the stealing of confidential company 8 documents. 9 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 21. 22. Knowing that he was about to be fired, Jacobs sent an email to four 10 Uber executives: then-CEO Travis Kalanick, Senior Vice President and Chief 11 Human Resources Officer Liane Hornsey, General Counsel Salle Yoo and Senior 12 Vice President of Global Policy and Communications Jill Hazelbaker 13 (collectively, the “Uber Executives”), in which Jacobs stated that he was writing 14 to inform them of his “immediate resignation due to working conditions that 15 have become intolerable because of Uber management’s illegal activities and 16 retaliation against me for refusing to engage in those activities.” 17 18 23. In that email, Jacobs made the following false and defamatory statements about the Plaintiffs and their work units: 19 a. Jacobs stated that the MA team’s “mission” is to “steal trade 20 secrets” and that the MA team carried out these efforts in 21 partnership with the SSG. 22 b. Jacobs asserted that the SSG, under Gicinto, “conducted 23 unauthorized surveillance, including unauthorized recording of 24 private conversations, against executives from competitor firms 25 such as Didi Chuxing, and against its own employees and 26 contractors at the Autonomous Technologies Group (ATG) in 27 Pittsburgh.” 28 5. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 6 of 11 c. Jacobs claimed that the Threat Operations team “conducted 1 2 unlawful technical collections against mobile phones of Uber’s 3 opponents and politicians.” 4 d. Jacobs also claimed “that MA hacked last year” into a database in a 5 foreign country to “unlawfully garner[] approximately 35,000 taxis 6 driver records for Uber’s benefit.” e. Jacobs alleged that the “Investigations team also engaged in illegal 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 7 8 inquiries by abusing data privacy for consumers, contract personnel, 9 and full-time employees often aimed at rooting out or discrediting 10 potential whistleblowers, quieting dissent, and to appease the 11 paranoia of senior executives.” f. Jacobs stated that the Investigations team “surreptitiously recorded” 12 13 an employee listening session “in February [2017]—in which 14 female employees were encouraged to attend an anonymous support 15 group for women dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace.” 16 24. Jacobs knew these allegations were untrue. Uber’s vice president 17 and deputy general counsel testified in open court that the bulk of Jacobs’s 18 claims were “meritless” and had “low value.” After a full and complete 19 investigation of Jacobs’s claims by former federal prosecutors, Uber took no 20 adverse employment action against any of the Plaintiffs, indicating that there was 21 no merit to Jacobs’s claims that Plaintiffs engaged in wrongdoing. Furthermore: 22 a. Jacobs admitted under oath in open court that his claims about MA 23 and SSG stealing trade secrets were false. When asked in open 24 court about his claims that MA stole trade secrets, Jacobs confessed 25 that his trade secret claims were “hyperbolic.” When asked whether 26 he stood by his claims that MA stole trade secrets, Jacobs said, “No 27 … I don’t stand by that statement.” And when asked what he was 28 aware of with respect to MA’s stealing of trade secrets from 6. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 7 of 11 1 Waymo, an Uber competitor, he responded, “Nothing.” When 2 asked whether he had information that would have indicated that his 3 claim that MA or Uber stole trade secrets was true, he answered, 4 “No.” b. Similarly fabricated was the claim that Gicinto conducted 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 5 6 unauthorized surveillance of executives from competitor firms. In 7 fact, Gicinto conducted no unauthorized surveillance of 8 competitors’ executives—Uber’s executive team authorized 9 surveillance of two competitors’ executives in public locations. 10 That surveillance was not conducted by Gicinto—it was performed 11 by others. Gicinto engaged in no recording of private conversations. 12 Instead, a single, non-confidential conversation involving personnel 13 from a competitor was legally recorded when the competitor’s 14 personnel sat down at a table already occupied by an individual 15 conducting surveillance supervised by Gicinto.1 Neither Gicinto nor 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 California Penal Code Section 632 prohibits only the recording of “confidential communication[s],” and does not forbid the recording of communications in which the participants lack a reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly those in public places. Davis v. Los Angeles W. Travelodge, No. CV 08–8279 CBM CTX, 2009 WL 4260406, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009) (“The communication took place in the hotel lobby, which is a public place. Given the location of the communication and the nature of the conversation, the desk clerk could have no reasonable expectation that her conversation was not being overheard or recorded. Accordingly, based on the facts here, the Court finds that evidence or testimony regarding the video recordings is not precluded by California Penal Code § 632.”); Wilkins v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1080 (1999) (lunch conversation was recorded, and “[w]aiters frequently came to the table, but Wilkins did not acknowledge them, pause in his sales pitch, or even lower his voice . . . This conversation was not confidential under the terms of the statute and O'Laskey and Coulter. Accordingly, videotaping the lunch meeting did not violate Penal Code section 632.”). 7. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 8 of 11 1 any other Plaintiff conducted, supervised, or authorized surveillance 2 of Uber employees or contractors at the Autonomous Technologies 3 Group in Pittsburgh. All surveillance activities conducted or 4 supervised by Gicinto or the other Plaintiffs was fully authorized 5 and directed by Uber executives. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 6 c. Jacobs’s assertion that MA has engaged in technical collections of 7 mobile phones—also known as wiretapping—was false. MA did 8 not engage in technical collections of telephone calls or data. MA 9 had neither the capability nor the inclination to engage in technical 10 collections on mobile phones and was aware that doing so would 11 violate the law. 12 d. Jacobs’s assertion that MA hacked an Argentinian database was a 13 fiction. In fact, a database of Argentinian taxi drivers that was 14 publicly available on the internet was accessed by an employee of 15 Uber. 16 e. Also false was the claim that the Investigations team engaged in 17 illegal inquiries concerning consumers, contract personnel, and full- 18 time employees. In fact, the Investigations team, under Henley’s 19 supervision, conducted occasional internal investigations of alleged 20 wrongdoing by Uber employees. Those investigations were 21 authorized, legal, and professional. The Investigations team never 22 investigated consumers and never abused data privacy. 23 f. The claim that the Investigations team surreptitiously recorded a 24 listening session concerning female employees was fallacious. In 25 fact, the session was recorded by an Uber employee, who passed the 26 recording to a journalist. That journalist publicly posted the 27 recording. Threat Operations investigated the leak and successfully 28 identified the employee who made the recording. During the course 8. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 9 of 11 1 of the many investigations conducted by the Investigations team and 2 Threat Operations—including investigations of Uber Board 3 members and executives—neither the Investigations team nor 4 Threat Operations surreptitiously recorded any conversations. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 5 25. Gicinto was mentioned by name in the April 14, 2017 email. 6 Plaintiff Henley was in charge of SSG and MA, which were the subject of the 7 allegations in the Jacobs email, and Plaintiffs Nocon and Russo were known 8 members of SSG whose responsibilities included the matters that were the 9 subject of the allegations in the email. The Uber Executives who received the 10 email reasonably understood the communication to be of and concerning all four 11 Plaintiffs, as the Uber Executives knew that Plaintiffs were the individuals who, 12 if Jacobs’s statements were true, would have authorized, supervised and/or 13 engaged in the conduct alleged in the Jacobs email. 14 26. Jacobs concocted the false allegations about the Plaintiffs in order to 15 excuse his failing performance and distract from his attempted theft of Uber 16 documents, and to dissuade Uber from taking adverse actions against him. 17 27. Jacobs’s defamatory email resulted in an internal investigation of 18 Plaintiffs during which Plaintiffs were repeatedly questioned, without legal 19 representation, about the conduct alleged in the Jacobs email. Plaintiffs 20 reasonably feared they would lose their jobs or suffer other employment 21 consequences as a result of Jacobs’s baseless allegations. 22 28. In December 2017, Jacobs’s email containing the fictional claims of 23 Plaintiffs’ misconduct was made public during proceedings in a federal civil case 24 that garnered a substantial amount of media attention, Waymo, LLC, v. Uber 25 Technologies, LLC, No. 17-939-WHA (N.D. Cal.).2 Jacobs’s false allegations 26 27 28 2 Also made public in the Waymo case were other letters written by counsel for Jacobs containing overlapping and additional allegations concerning 9. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 10 of 11 1 concerning the Plaintiffs were then amplified and widely reported in the media. 2 Plaintiffs Henley, Gicinto, and Russo were required to testify publicly 3 concerning the allegations, which resulted in additional publicity concerning 4 Jacobs’s lies about them. 5 29. 6 email, Plaintiffs’ previously unblemished reputations have been irreparably 7 besmirched, and their prospects for advancement at Uber and employment 8 elsewhere have diminished substantially. V. 9 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 10 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP As a result of the unfounded claims in Jacobs’s April 14, 2017 30. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and 11 every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint as though 12 set forth fully herein. 13 31. On April 14, 2017, Defendant sent an email to the Uber Executives 14 that contained the false statements of fact set forth in paragraph 23 above that 15 were of and concerning Plaintiffs. 16 32. The false statements were made with actual malice because Jacobs 17 knew the statements were false and/or Jacobs made the statements with reckless 18 disregard of whether the statements were false or not. 19 33. Jacobs’s false statements caused harm to Plaintiffs’ reputations in 20 connection with their profession and occupation. As a direct and proximate 21 result of Jacobs’s defamatory statements, Plaintiffs were each damaged in an 22 amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional limit. 23 34. In doing these acts, Jacobs acted with oppression, fraud, or malice 24 as defined by California Civil Code section 3294(c), and Plaintiffs are therefore 25 entitled to punitive and/or exemplary damages. 26 27 28 Plaintiffs and others. The statements in those letters are not the subject of this Complaint. 10. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 11 of 11 1 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant as more fully set forth below. VI. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 4 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant as follows: 5 1. For compensatory damages and other special, general and 6 consequential damages according to proof, in an amount not less than $10 7 million; 8 2. For an award of punitive and/or exemplary damages; 9 3. For an award of interest according to law; 10 4. For an award of costs of suit; 11 5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 12 13 14 15 16 17 VII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial. Dated: April 13, 2018 SPERTUS, LANDES & UMHOFER, LLP By: _________________________________ Matthew Donald Umhofer Ezra D. Landes Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. COMPLAINT Case 3:18-cv-02244 Document 1-1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 1 JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS MATHEW HENLEY, an individual; NICHOLAS GICINTO, an individual; EDWARD RUSSO, an individual; and JACOB NOCON, an individual, (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff RICHARD A. JACOBS, an individual, County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Santa Clara, California (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Matthew D. Umhofer, Ezra D. Landes, Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP, 1990 South Bundy Dr., Suite 705, Los Angeles, California 90025 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 IV. NATURE OF SUIT CONTRACT 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment Of Veteran’s Benefits 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property V. 1 VI. King County, Washington IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (If Known) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) PTF 1 Citizen of This State Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) DEF 1 Citizen of Another State 2 2 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 3 3 and One Box for Defendant) PTF Incorporated or Principal Place 4 of Business In This State Incorporated and Principal Place 5 of Business In Another State Foreign Nation 6 DEF 4 5 6 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) TORTS PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury -Medical Malpractice PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury – Product Liability 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities– Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other 448 Education HABEAS CORPUS 463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty FORFEITURE/PENALTY 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC § 881 690 Other LABOR BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC § 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application 465 Other Immigration Actions 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 835 PatentņAbbreviated New Drug Application 840 Trademark SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC § 7609 OTHER 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee– Conditions of Confinement OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 376 Qui Tam (31 USC § 3729(a)) 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Original Proceeding CAUSE OF ACTION 2 3 Removed from State Court Remanded from Appellate Court 4 Reinstated or Reopened 5 Transferred from Another District (specify) 6 Multidistrict Litigation–Transfer 8 Multidistrict Litigation–Direct File Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332 Brief description of cause: Defamation: Libel VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY (See instructions): IX. DEMAND $ 10,000,000.00 JUDGE DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND (Place an “X” in One Box Only) DATE 04/13/2018 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: Yes No DOCKET NUMBER SAN JOSE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE /s/ Matthew D. Umhofer