SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-21-2018 4:11 pm Case Number: Filing Date: Sep-21-2018 4:03 Filed by: ROSSALY DELAVEGA Image: 06506635 COMPLAINT SABRINA SUZUKI VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL I TRANSPORTATION ET AL 001C06506635 Instructions: Please place this sheet on t0p of the document to be scanned. r? Ti? SUM 100 (smzc?ssausrsraz?sm NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (A VISO AL DEMANDAD CITY OF SAN FRAN MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and JOHN HALEY, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ES Till DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): SABRINA SUZUKI, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated persons 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 legal 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 Online Self-Help Center 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 file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, 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. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site the California Courts Online Self-Help Center or by contacting your local 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. Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dies, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacien a continuaci?n. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacien papeles legales para presenter una respuesta per escrito en esta certe hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta una llamada telefo'nica no lo protegen. Su respuesta per escrite tiene que estar en formato legal con?ecto si desea que procesen su case en la code. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encentrar estes formularios de la corte mas informacion en el Centre de Ayuda de las Cortes de California en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacien, pida al secretario de la certe que le d? un formulario de exencion de page do cuetas. Si no presents su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder of case per incumplimiento la certe le pedra quitar su suelde, dinero bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otres requisites legales. Es recomendabie que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuites de un programa de servicios legales sin ?nes de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, en el Centre de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, poni?ndose en contacto con la corte 0 el colegio de abogados locales. Per ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas los costos exentos per imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacien de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerde 0 one concesie'n de arbitraje en un case do derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte puede desechar el case. The name and address of the court is: CASE ?1 -. (El nombre direccien de la corte es): (?memSan Francisco Superior Court 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff?s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion el ntimero de tel?fono del abogado del demandante, 0 del de Ayse Kuzucuoglu The Embarcadero, Pier 9, Suite 100, San Fr co,? CA 94111 DATE: Cl ER (FeCha) SEP 2 1 2018 OF THE COURT (xSECH-Jumi-u/l (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of I mmons (form Pl . I I . Rossal (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el fermuiario Pro: of Service of mons, . NOTICE TO THE PERSON RVEDindividual defen . - . 2. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): no tiene abogado, es): 3_ l:l on behalf of (specify): under: Cl CCP 416.10 (corporation) . OF 416.60 (minor) )2 GOP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) [3 GOP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): 4- l:l by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use 8? MON 3 Code of Civil Procedure 412.20, 465 Judicial Council of California courtinfoca. gov SUM-100 (Rev. July 1, 2009} AYSE KUZUCUOGLU (SBN 251 1 14) AK EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE if I 9 Pier, The Embarcadero, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 San Francisco Tel: (415) 638?9471 E-mai1: Attorney for Plaintiff i OF T?Ef-r v? 1? . SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF a . Deputy COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CaseNo.: 060-18-570023 SEPZ 4'1 2018 SABRINA SUZUKI, individually, and on behalf 1 Of other similarly situated persons, 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (1) Sexual Harassment (GOV. Code 129400)); Plaintiff, 1 (2) Sex Discrimination (Gov. Code 12940(a)); (3) Race Discrimination (Gov. Code 12940(a)); (4) Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination (GOV. Code 12940(k)); CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL (5) Retaliation (Gov. Code 1294001)); TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and JOHN (6) Retaliation (Labor Code {5 1102.5, et seq); HALEY, a pUbllC and DOES 1 through (7) Retaliation (Labor Code 6310); 100? "101?st (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (9) Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. Prof. Code section 17200, et seq.) Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3?51!? i Plaintiff SABRINA SUZUKI (?Plaintiff?), by and through her attorney, hereby complains against Defendants CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY a public entity, and JOHN HALEY (collectively, ?Defendants?) as follows: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Venue is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 395(a). Defendants transact business in the County of San Francisco, and are within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of service of process. 11. . PARTIES 2. Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of the County of San Mateo, California. 3. Defendant SF MTA is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government, and authorized and quali?ed to do business in the County of San Francisco. Defendant?s place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of San Francisco, at 1 South Van Ness, Floor 7, San Francisco, California 94103. 4. Defendant HALEY is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a supervisor and managing agent of Defendant. Defendant HALEY is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of California. 5. Defendants Does to 100, inclusive, are sued under fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,- that each of the Defendants sued under ?ctitious names is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged below. All Defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and/or abetted the discrimination, retaliation, and harassment alleged in this Complaint, which conduct is prohibited under California Government Code section 129400). All Defendants were responsible for the events and damages alleged herein, including on the following bases: (3) Defendants committed the acts alleged; at all relevant times, one or more of the Defendants was the agent or employee, and/or acted under the control or supervision, of one or more of the remaining Defendants and, in committing the acts alleged, acted within the course COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2 and scope of such agency and employment and/or is or are otherwise liable for Plaintiff?s damages; (0) at all relevant times, there existed a unity of ownership and interest between or among two or more of the Defendants such that any individuality and separateness between or among those Defendants has ceased, and Defendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants exercised domination and control over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of Defendants does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. Adherence to the ?ction of the separate existence of Defendants would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud and promote injustice. A11 actions of all Defendants were taken by employees, supervisors, executives, of?cers, and directors during employment with all Defendants, were taken on behalf of all Defendants, and were engaged in, authorized, rati?ed, and approved of by all other Defendants. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. The named. Defendants and Doe Defendants are sometimes hereafter referred to, collectively and/or individually, as ?Defendants.? FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Plaintiff is a 37-year-old, Asian-American female who has been working at SFMTA since February 19, 2013. 7. From February 2013 through December 2014, Plaintiff worked as a 1312 Public Information Of?cer and reported to Defendant John HALEY, Director of Transit, and Paul Rose, SFMTA Spokesperson and Media Relations Manager for the Communications Department of SFMTA. In December 2014, Plaintiff became 1844 Senior Management Assistant. She began reporting exclusively to Defendant HALEY in January 2015. 8. As an 1844 Senior Management Assistant, Plaintiff was responsible for providing administrative support to the Transit Division?s various functions and sections. Speci?cally, Plaintiff was assigned to provide administrative support to Defendant HALEY by scheduling meetings, preparing meeting agendas, monitoring deadlines, conducting research, gathering information and communicating COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3 with the Transit staff, other SFMTA divisions, outside agencies and constituents on behalf of Defendant HALEY. 9. As evidenced by her performance evaluations, in addition to her traditional job duties, Defendant HALEY tasked Plaintiff with duties and responsibilities that exceed her classi?cation, which included the following: a. b. Serving as the Transit Capital Committee Representative for Transit: Drafting executive communication, letters to all staff, organizational announcements; Preparing weekly Service Review Meeting Agendas, sending staff follow?up items, outlook calendar invitations and reminder for future tasks; Preparing weekly On-Time Performance Meeting Agendas, sending staff follow-up items, outlook calendar invitations and reminder for future tasks; Preparing PowerPoint presentations; analyzing trends, conducting research and interpreting data for presentations; Maintaining Defendant Outlook calendar and acting as a backup for his Executive Assistant; Providing support to Transit Managers and communicating any issues or topics that need immediate attention to Defendant Working with individual Transit Divisions to improve their performance on various levels; Participating and managing in two CPUC Triennial Audits, creating schedules, following up regarding action items and working with Track Managers to come up with complex matrix and tracking database; Managing all annOUnced or unannounced regulatory inspections including written correspondence and tracking; Participating in incident review meetings, creating Accident Investigation Summaries; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Responding to constituent issues that come through Director of Transit?s of?ce, Government Affairs, 3-1?1, Supervisor offices, etc. m. Training the Trainer on how to use new radios, communication protocol and system improvements; and n. Working with Metro Rail Operations to develop cross-training materials to consolidate its units. 10. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff has performed her duties above expectations, was well liked by others, and excelled in her position. Her performance evaluations were exemplary. 11. Throughout her employment with SF MTA, Defendant HALEY subjected Plaintiff to a pattern of harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory conduct. 12. Beginning in or around January 2015 and continuing through October 2017, approximately once a month, Defendant HALEY asked Plaintiff to help him with something on his computer. On each occasion, Defendant HALEY remained seated in his desk chair forcing Plaintiff to stand in front of his computer while leaning in against her as she performed the requested task, thus encroaching on her personal space in such a manner that he was touching her. 13. In May 2016, Defendant HALEY asked Plaintiff about the pants she was wearing and told her ?to turn around? and ?let [him] see.? While Plaintiff was doing a quick half-tum in an effort to end the conversation, Defendant HALEY placed his hand on the back of Plaintiff thigh and stopped her from turning more to position her backside in his direct view and continued to touch her. 14. On November 6, 2017, while Plaintiff and Defendant HALEY were discussing the guest list for a happy hour he was hosting, Defendant HALEY instructed Plaintiff to cross an individual off the list. As Plaintiff moved to cross the name off, Defendant HALEY grabbed her hand in haste, physically moved her hand, and said, ?No. Don?t cross it off.? 15. On November 7, 2017, at a work happy hour, in front of Plaintiffs coworkers, Defendant HALEY walked up to the Plaintiff, took her drink out of her hand without her consent and any warning, took a sip, and said, ?Mmm, that?s pretty good.? He then put the drink back into Plaintiffs hand and walked off. Defendant HALEY engaged in the same conduct back in 2016 at a work event. Each time, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5 ?at, ?w?t Plaintiff felt belittled and powerless as if Defendant HALEY was marking her as his property and under his control. 16. Defendant HALEY sexualized Plaintiff as a woman from the beginning of her employment with SFMTA. He often referenced to Plaintiff?s my male colleagues as her ?boyfriends,? and said, ?[c]an you get your boyfriend on the phone?? These types of comments were offensive to Plaintiff because Defendant HALEY suggested that Plaintiff has multiple boyfriends throughout the department, which made Plaintiff feel objecti?ed. 17. Beginning in or around May 2016 and continuing to November 2017, Defendant HALEY made comments to Plaintiff about women?s appearances in sexual ways. 18. In or around summer 2016, Defendant HALEY initiated a conversation with Plaintiff about women wearing leggings. He asked, ?[w]hy are all women wearing leggings these days?? He also commented that he saw many women at the wearing leggings, that one woman was ?this big,? ?while gesturing with his hands to demonstrate that the woman was fat, and said, ?she really should-not be wearing them.? Defendant HALEY then said, ?but this other woman, she looked really good in them,? while opening his eyes wide and nodding in a way that suggested that he thought the woman was attractive. 19. In the summer of 2016, Defendant HALEY asked Plaintiff whether she saw ?that .woman? while gesturing with his hands in front of his chest in a manner that suggested he was referring to the woman?s breasts. 20. In 2016, Defendant HALEY commented that Leda Rozier ?dresses nice,? while nodding and raising his eyebrows in a way that suggested he thought Ms. Rozier is attractive. 21. In 2016, Defendant HALEY commented that he had a ?crush? on Aida Corpuz. Plaintiff felt uncomfortable with the way Defendant HALEY sexualizes or romanticizes about women in the workplace. 22. In January 2017, Defendant HALEY told Plaintiff that a woman he saw at a recent Christmas party was ?spilling out of her dress,? inferring that ?she was showing a lot of skin all in the right places.? COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 6 10 ll 12 13 1'October 31, 2017, during a meeting with several of his direct reports and senior managers, Defendant HALEY commented about the ?badge? size of some of the men in the room, and asked, ?who has the biggest badge?? which Plaintiff understood to be an innuendo about male genitalia. Only the men laughed at Defendant comment and other women also understood this comment to be an innuendo about male genitalia. 24. On November 1, 2017, during a Service Review Meeting, Defendant HALEY asked in. reference to another SFMTA Division, ?Why would they work with us, they walk all over our family jewels,? which Plaintiff understood to be an innuendo about male genitalia. 25. In an October 31, 2017 meeting, when a colleague stated that he could not perform a task that was out of scope of his duties, Defendant HALEY ridiculed him in front of the Transit Managers as having ?the Suzuki Plaintiff was extremely offended and embarrassed by Defendant comment. 26. In August 2017, Defendant HALEY made comments about wanting to kill co- workers/colleagues or wanting them dead. He has made comments about wanting ?these women? to all die in a ?re, referring to several women, including City Attorney Robin Reitzes and Lorrain Phelan in Communications. Defendant anger and expressions of desire to harm others intimidates Plaintiff and makes her feel threatened for her own safety. 27. At senior management meetings, Defendant HALEY has been verbally abusive towards Plaintiff in front of her peers and managers. For example, when Plaintiff raised her hand in a meeting to make a suggestion, Defendant HALEY said, ?who are you?? ?do you still work here?? He belittled her in front of others and said, ?Sabrina is a part?timer,? which is untrue and was intended to diminish Plaintiff? role. 28. Instead of calling her by name, Defendant HALEY refers to Plaintiff as ?that women? in front of others, as another way to belittle her within the organization. He has purposely called Plaintiff by the wrong name, calling her ?Sarita? on several occasions, which is the name of a woman Defendant HALEY used to work with and did not think highly of. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 7 29. For weeks at a time, Defendant HALEY purposely ignored Plaintiff and ostracized her from being involved in projects she had already been a part of. When Plaintiff proactively attempted to ask Defendant HALEY What she had done to deserve this kind of treatment, Defendant HALEY shoed her, waving his hands and not even looking up from his computer. I 30. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff asked Defendant HALEY several times for permission to attend training in order to learn certain new job duties and/or enable her to get a promotion. Defendant HALEY denied all of Plaintiff?s requests. On one occasion, when Plaintiff signed up for a training session that was relevant to her job duties without Defendant permission, Defendant HALEY got really upset and said, ?You are taking a lot of liberties with me.? He again refused to approve the training Plaintiff signed up for. 31. Defendant HALEY also discredited Plaintiffs prior training and education. When Defendant Haley learned that Plaintiff is certified in Roadway Worker Protection, he dismissed the certi?cation as a ?joke of a course? and made fun of the people who teach it. Again, Plaintiff was attacked for looking for advancement when she should have received acknowledgment for contributing to the safety of the system. 32. Defendant HALEY denied Plaintiff the support she needed to advance in her career. In and around December 2015, Plaintiff requested Defendant HALEY to assign her two direct reports in order to earn the credibility of ?managing staff? for her career advancement. Defendant HALEY dismissed this request without any consideration. 33. Plaintiff also asked and applied for seVeral promotions, all of which were denied by Defendant HALEY. Defendant HALEY impeded Plaintiff?s ability to receive a promotion by denying her support, but then immediately provided support to a male colleague to take over the role Plaintiff applied for. In and around early 2017, Plaintiff asked Defendant HALEY if she could of?cially become the Transit Regulatory Manager as verbally promised. Despite the fact that Plaintiff had already been carrying out the duties of Transit Regulatory Manager for some time and successfully managed two triennial audits with the CPUC and TA, Defendant HALEY repeatedly dismissed Plaintiff and stated, ?you are too nice? to manage a section. His decision was not based on Plaintiff?s job performance, but COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 8 rather due to the perception that Plaintiff was ?weak? as a woman. Instead, Defendant HALEY gave the Transit Regulatory Manager position to a male employee named Oliver Gajda despite the fact that Mr. Gajda did not have the experience Plaintiff had handling the requirements of the position. In fact, Mr. Gajda admitted that he could not fully take on the position of Regulatory Manager as there was a lot to the job he did not know or understand. Mr. Gajda kept asking Plaintiff to train him on her job duties even though he was immediately assigned two employees to help him qualify for the position, while Plaintiff? 5 request for support employees was repeatedly denied. Mr. Gajda?s supervisor, Julie informed Plaintiff that, ?[John is giving Oliver [Gajda] Regulatory because you?re too nice.? 34. Similarly, in October 18, 2017, when Plaintiff asked Mr. HALEY if she could apply for the Superintendent position, he hastily responded, ?why do you want to work for those people,? don?t think you are a good don?t know what you do.? When Plaintiff tried to explain that she has been supporting him for ?ve years and that he must know her job duties, he got really angry, raised his voice and do you want from me?? He then insulted Plaintiff by stating, don?t know what you do? despite the fact that Plaintiff reported to him for the past four and one-half years. Following this incident, he continued to deny Plaintiff training and promotional opportunities. 35. Plaintiff believes and alleges that Defendant HALEY, who is a Caucasian male, has been harassing and discriminating against her because of her race and sex. He has treated Plaintiff as if she should be acting more like a subservient Asian woman. While denying Plaintiff promotional and training opportunities, Defendant HALEY used Plaintiff as his ?race card.? After being accused of discrimination against dark Filipinos by another SFMTA employee, Defendant HALEY asked Plaintiff, ?You?re Filipino, aren?t you?? In fact, Plaintiff is the only Asian woman and one of the only two minorities who directly report to Defendant HALEY. Mr. Haley talks negatively about other Asian employees, often making fun of them to other Departments. Besides Plaintiff and Defendant Executive Assistant, who is Latino, all of Defendant direct reports are Caucasian, and he has a history of promoting only Caucasian employees. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 36. Defendant HALEY does not use the same retaliation tactics with Caucasian or male colleagues. He does not ignore them. for weeks at a time, does not shoe them out of his room or embarrass them in front of a room full of senior managers, and does not cause physical harm by encroaching on their space and taking a drink out of their hand at a happy hour. He treats male Caucasian employees more favorably. Caucasian men have a better chance to be promoted by Defendant HALEY. . 37. On November 8, 2017, Plaintiff ?led a complaint of discrimination and harassment Complaint?) with the City and County of San Francisco?s Department of Human Resources, Equal Employment Opportunity Division While the DHR conducted an investigation, the suf?ciency of which is disputed, it made ?ndings that are inconsistent with the testimony of witnesses and the law. Despite evidence establishing the validity of the complaints Plaintiff raised, DHR summarily explained away and/or dismissed all of Plaintiff?s allegations in order to justify Defendant harassing and discriminatory conduct. Based on these false and improper conclusions, DHR determined that ?there is insuf?cient evidence to establish that Defendant HALEY subjected Plaintiff to unwelcome physical or verbal conduct due to sex, retaliation, or discrimination due to sex or race, in violation of the City?s EEO Policy.? Plaintiff?s request to be reassigned to another person was denied. She is required to continue to report to Defendant HALEY, the same individual who she believes harassed and discriminated against her. As a result, Plaintiff continues to be'subjected to a hostile work environment on a daily basis. 38. Since ?ling her EEO Complaint, Defendant HALEY has been retaliating against Plaintiff in many ways. For example, he refuses to communicate with her, does not provide her any direction, ignores her and excludes her from meetings and conference calls she was previously a part of. He also took away a majority of her job duties, leaving her with little to do. Plaintiff no longer performs the following duties she previously performed and does not receive any direction from Defendant HALEY with respect to some of these duties: a. Serving as the Transit Capital Committee Representative for Transit; b. Drafting executive communication, letters to all staff, organizational announcements; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 Preparing weekly Service Review Meeting Agendas, sending to staff follow-up items, outlook calendar invitations and reminder for future tasks; d. Preparing weekly On-Time Performance Meeting Agendas, sending to staff follow?up items, outlook calendar invitations and reminder for future tasks; e. Preparing PowerPoint presentations; analyzing trends, conducting research and interpreting data for presentations; f. Maintaining Defendant Outlook calendar and acting as a backup for his Executive Assistant; g. Working with individual Transit Divisions to improve their performance on various levels: h. Participating in CPUC Triennial Audit, following up with action items and working with Track Managers to come up with complex matrix and tracking database; i. Participating in incident review meetings, creating Accident Investigation Summaries; j. Training the Trainer on how to use new radios, communication protocol, and system improvements. 39. As a consequence of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff was unable to advance in her careers, and has suffered and will suffer harm, including lost past and future income and employment bene?ts, damage to her career, and lost wages, compensatory time, unpaid expenses, and penalties, as well as interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which those wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial. 40. As a consequence of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer and emotional distress, humiliation, and mental and physical pain and anguish, in a sum to be proven at trial. 41. Defendants? conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, and/or malice under California Civil Code section 3294 and, thus, entitles Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and/or punitive damages. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 1 may 42. Defendants? conduct was committed with malice within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that Defendants acted with intent to cause injury to Plaintiff and/or acted with reckless disregard for Plaintiff?s injury, and/or taking other adverse job actions against Plaintiff because of her sex, race and/0r good faith complaints, and/or Defendants? conduct was despicable and committed in willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights, health, and safety, including Plaintiff?s right to be free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. 43. In addition, and/or alternatively, Defendants? conduct was committed with oppression within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that Defendants? actions against Plaintiff because of her sex, race and/or good faith complaints were ?despicable? and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, in knowing disregard of Plaintiff?s rights to a work place free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. 44. In addition, and/or alternatively, Defendants? conduct, as alleged, was fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3294, including that Defendants asserted false (pretextual) grounds for denying Plaintiff training and promotion and/or other adverse job actions, thereby to cause Plaintiff hardship and deprive her of legal rights. 45. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys? fees. 46. Prior to ?ling this action, Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies by ?ling a timely administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and receiving a DFEH right-to-sue letter. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Sexual Harassment in Violation of Government Code 129400)) (Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 46, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 48. Government Code section 129400) requires Defendants to refrain from sexually harassing any employee on the basis of sex or gender. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 12 49. During Plaintiff?s employment, Defendants? agents and supervisors, Specifically Defendant HALEY, subjected Plaintiff to unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Submission to this conduct was made explicitly and implicitly a term or condition of Plaintiff? 3 employment or provision of services. Plaintiff?s submission to or rejection of the conduct was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting Plaintiff. All of these actions were taken against Plaintiff?s will and desire and over her protests. 50. As identified herein, Defendants? harassing conduct created a hostile working environment for Plaintiff. Defendants? agents and supervisors knew or should have known of the harassing conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 51. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing, and intentional sexual harassment, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment bene?ts. 52. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing, and intentional sexual harassment, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 53. Defendants? sexual harassment was committed intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive, fraudulent manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. 54. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys? fees. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys? fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Sex Discrimination in Violation of Government Code 12940(a)) (Against SFMTA and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 54, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 56. At all times herein mentioned, Califomia?s Fair Employment and Housing Act Cal. Government Code 12940 et seq, was in full force and effect and fully binding upon COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 3 Defendants. Plaintiff was a member of a group protected by the statute, in particular section 12940(a), prohibiting discrimination in employment based on sex. 57. The conduct towards Plaintiff by Defendants, including failure to train and promote, constitutes discrimination based on sex and violated Government Code 12940(a). 58. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, equity and other employment bene?ts and has incurred other economic losses. 59. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all to the Plaintiff? damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial. 60. Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in censcious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiff and others. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Race Discrimination in Violation of Government Code 12940(a)) (Against SF MTA and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 62. At all times herein mentioned, Califomia?s air Employment and Housing Act Cal. Government Code 12940 et seq., was in full force and effect and fully binding upon Defendants. Plaintiff was a member of a group protected by the statute, in particular section 12940(a), prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race. 63. The conduct towards Plaintiff by Defendants, including failure to train and promote, constitutes discrimination based on sex and violated Government Code 12940(a). COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 4 h?w?a tag! 64. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, equity and other employment bene?ts and has incurred other economic losses. - 65. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment all to the Plaintiff? damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial. 66. Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiff and others. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Government Code 12940(k)) (Against SF MTA and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 66, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 68. Government Code section 12940(k) makes it is an unlawful employment practice in California for an employer ?to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.? 69. During the course of Plaintiff?s employment, Defendants failed to prevent their employees from engaging in intentional actions that resulted in Plaintiff being treated less favorably because of Plaintiff? protected status (116., sex, race, refusing sexual harassment and discrimination). During the course of Plaintiffs employment, Defendants failed to prevent their employees from engaging in unjusti?ed employment practices against employees in such protected classes. During the course of Plaintiff?s employment, Defendants failed to prevent a pattern and practice by their employees of intentional discrimination and harassment on the bases of sex, race and/or other protected statuses or protected activities. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 15 70. Plaintiff believes and on that basis alleges that her sex, race and/or other protected status and/or protected activity were substantial motivating factors in Defendants? employees? discrimination against and harassment of her. 71. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing, and intentional misconduct, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment bene?ts. 72. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing, and intentional misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 73. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney-3? fees. Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys? fees and costs (including expert costs) in an amount according to proof. 74. Defendants? misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Government Code 12940(h)) (Against SF MTA and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 74, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 76. Government Code 12940(h) makes it an unlaw?il employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part. 77. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff opposed the sexually harassing and discriminatory behavior of Defendant HALEY. She even went as far as to file an EEO Complaint with DHR. In response to her opposition of sexually harassing and discriminatory conduct, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in many ways. For example, Defendant HALEY refuses to communicate with Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 6 doesn?t give her direction, ignores her, excludes her from meetings and conference calls she was previously a part of, and took away a majority of her job duties, leaving her with little to do. 78. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and Continues to suffer losses in earnings and other employment bene?ts and has incurred other economic losses. 79. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment, all to the Plaintiff?s damage in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 80. Defendants committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 1102.5, et seq.) (Against SFMTA and Does to 100, Inclusive) 81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 80, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 82. Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits Defendants from retaliating against any employee, including Plaintiff for raising complaints of illegality. 83. Plaintiff raised complaints of illegality while she worked for Defendants, including her report of harassment and discrimination, and unsafe work environment due to Defendant angry and threatening behavior to such an extent that he comments about wanting to kill peOple, which constitutes a violation of Occupational Health And Safety Act. In response to Plaintiff?s complaints, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by discriminating against her, harassing her, and taking adverse employment actions, including denial of training and promotion, against her. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES l7 proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing, and intentional violations of Labor Code section 1 102.5, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 85. As a result of Defendants? adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof. 86. Defendants? misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive, fraudulent manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 6310) (Against SFMTA and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 87. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 86, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 88. Labor Code section 6310 provides that, person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Made any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative. . . 89. Labor Code section 6310 also provides, ?[a]ny employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has made a bona ?de oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or her employment or place of employment, or has participated in an empioyer?employee occupational health and safety committee, shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer. Any employer who willfully refuses to rehire, promote, or otherwise restore an COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 8 employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty ofa misdemeanor.? 90. Plaintiff raised complaints of illegality while she worked for Defendants, including unsafe work environment due to Defendant angry and threatening behavior to such an extent that he comments about wanting to kill people, which constitutes a violation of Occupational Health And Safety Act. In response to Plaintiff?s complaints, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by discriminating against her, harassing her, and taking adverse employment actions, including denial of training and promotion, against her. 91. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, knowing, and intentional violations of Labor Code section 6310, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof. 92. As a result of Defendants? adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in sums according to proof. 93. Defendants? misconduct was committed intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive, fraudulent manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) (Against All Defendants and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 93, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 95. The conduct of Defendant HALEY and Defendants? managers, senior executives and Human Resources personnel, as set forth above, was so extreme and outrageous that it exceeded the boundaries of human decency and was beyond pale of conduct tolerated in a civilized society. This conduct was intended to cause severe emotional distress, or was done in reckless disregard of the probability of causing severe emotional distress. 96. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 9 {55? motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights. Because the acts taken . toward Plaintiff were carried out by Defendants acting in a deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, she is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. 97. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants? wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe and continuous humiliation, emotional distress, and physical and mental pain and anguish, all to her damage in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Business Practices) (Against SFMTA and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive) 98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 97, and each and every part thereof with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 99. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violates California Unfair Competition Law Cal. Bus. Prof. Code section 17200, et seq. Section 17200 prohibits unfair competition by prohibiting, inter alia, any unlawful and unfair business practices or business acts. 100. Throughout the course of Plaintiff 5 employment, Defendants committed acts of unfair competition, as de?ned by the UCL, by, among other things, engaging in the acts and practices described herein, including but not limited to discriminating against her on the basis of her sex and race, retaliating against her for complaining about harassment, discrimination and unsafe work environment. Defendants? conduct as herein alleged has damaged the Plaintiff by wrongfully denied training and promotion, banning her reputation and creating mental and emotional distress, and therefore was substantially injurious to the Plaintiff. 101. Defendants? course of conduct, acts, and practices in violation of the California laws mentioned in the above paragraph constitute a separate and independent violation of the UCL. Defendants? conduct described herein violates the policy or spirit of such laws or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 20 102. Plaintiff seeks disgorgement in the amount of the respective unpaid wages and equity and such other legal and equitable relief from Defendants? unlawful and willful conduct as the Court deems just and proper. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREF ORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: Dated: . For compensatory damages, including but not limited to, lost back pay, plus interest, lost fringe benefits and future lost earnings and fringe bene?ts, lost equity, damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering, according to proof allowed by law; . For punitive damages allowed by law; For restitution and/or disgorgement; . For an award to Plaintiff of costs of suit incurred herein and reasonable attorneys? fees; For an award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and For an award to Plaintiff of such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, 09/21/2018 AK EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE BM AYSE KUZUCUOGLU Attorney for Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 21 can-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Ayse Kuzucuoglu 251 14) AK Em loyment Law Office The Em arcadero, Pier 9, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA 94] i TELEPHONE ?415) 63 8-947] FAX NO.: FOR {Name}: laintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 83]] STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street MAILING ADDRESS: cm AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, CA 94102 BRANCH NAME: CASE NAME: Susuki v. City of San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: Unlimited Limited IZI (Amount (Amount El Counter I:l Joinder demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant JUDGE: CGC --. 1 exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: 8 6 - 1 Items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) . Breach of contract/warranty (05) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400?3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other (Personal Other collections (09) DamageiWrongful Death) Tort insurance coverage (18) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) Mass tort (40) DDUDDU (04) Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) "abillty (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/Inverse insurance coverage claims arising from the El Other (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case - I t' 33 types (41) (Other) Tort ?"19 em i El Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement Of Judgment l:l Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement of judgment (20) l:l Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) Residential (32) CI RICO (27) - I: Intellectual prope?y (19) I: DIUQS (38) l:l Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Professional negligence I25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tort (35) I: forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment CI Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not Specified above) (43) CI Wrongful termination (36) CI Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case I: 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. I: Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. I: Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court 0. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. l:l Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): all] monetary nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief C. [leunitive Number of causes of action (specify): 9 This case is I: is not a class action suit. 91:55? 6. If there are any known related cases, ?le and serve a notice of related case. (You ay use form CM-015.) . M: 7? Date: September 21, 2018 - Ayse Kuzucuoglu (TYPE OR NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE - Plaintiff must ?ie this cover sheet with the first paper ?led in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases ?led under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file 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 rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onl . age 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400?3.403. 3.740; Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 CM-010 fRev. July 1. 2007] 002 ?a ,2 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET 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 file, along with your ?rst paper, the Civil Case .Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases ?led. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more speci?c type of case listed in item 1, check the more speci?c one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be ?led only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may ?le and serve no later than the time of its ?rst appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)?Personal injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other (Personal lnjuryl Property DamagelWrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal lnjuryl Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice? Physicians Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other (23) Premises Liability slip and fall) Intentional Bodily assault. vandalism) Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress Negligent lnfliction of Emotional Distress Other (Other) Tort Business TortlUnfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) (EM-010 (Rev. July 1. 2007] CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach?Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contractl Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case?Sellerr Plaintiff Other Promissory NotelCoIIections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (1 8) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; othenivise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (1 t) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ?Administrative Mandamus Writ?Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ?Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal?Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400?3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment ase Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page 2 of 2