ial fic Un of C ist ric t C ler k l D nie Da is hr C of e ffic O op y 2018-69816 / Court: 334 DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 4. Jane Doe intends to conduct discovery pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4 (Level 3). PARTIES A. PLAINTIFF - 8x 5. Jane Doe is and was at all relevant times a resident of Harris Texas. 6. Jane Doe is a traf?cked person as de?ned by Texas Civil tice Remedies Code 98. 0 $9 . FACEBOOK 7. Facebook is a foreign corporation, incorporat? Delaware and with its headquarters and principal place of business in California. 8. Facebook has conducted business ?s 9. Facebook maintains offices in kg. 10. Facebook targets Texas as @mrketplace for its business. 11. Facebook may be sen?y service of process upon its registered agent Corporation Service Company d/ a CSC?Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th St., Ste. 620, Austin, TX any other method authorized by law. C. THE DEFENDANTS 12. Backpagecom, LLC d/ a Backpage (?Backpage?) is a Delaware limited liability comperch its headquarters and principal place of business in Texas. 13. As a limited liability company, Backpage is treated as an unassociated entity and shares citizenship with each of its members. Harvey .72. Grey Ca, 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008) 14. At all relevant times, Backpage members, including but not limited to Carl Ferrer, Daniel Hyer, Andrew Padilla, and Jalla Joye Vaught, have resided in Texas. 15. At all relevant times, Backpage transacted business in Texas and purpose?ally availed its elf in Texas 16. Backpage had its headquarters and principal place of business in DaWounty, Texas. Backpage may be served through its Counsel, Mark Castillo, Curtis Cas@@C, 901 Main St., 6515, Dallas, TX 75202, or by any other method authorized by law. o? 17. Defendant Carl Ferrer is a natural person who is and citizen of Denton 18. At all relevant times, Ferrer transacted busiu?n Harris County, Texas. County, Texas. 19. Ferrer may be served through his Coou%ark Castillo, Curtis Castillo PC, 901 Main St., 6515, Dallas, TX 75202, or by any otheQ?hod authorized by law. 20. Defendant Michael Lacey is a ?@aral person. 21. At all relevant times, Lap?hnsacted business in Texas, including in Harris County, Texas. (33% 22. Lacey may be se at 3300 E. Stella Lane, Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253, or wherever he may be foundCJ? 23. Defen @ames Larkin is a natural person. 24. At @levant times, Larkin transacted business in Texas. 25. @in may be served at 5555 N. Casa Blanca Drive, Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253, or wherever he may be found. 26. Defendant John Brunst is a natural person. 27. At all relevant times, Brunst transacted business in Texas, including in Harris County, Texas. 28. Brunst may be served at 5830 East Calle Del Medio Phoenix Arizona 85018, or wherever he may be found. 29. Backpage, Ferrer, Lacey, Larkin, and Brunst, are referred to jointly as ?The Backpage Defendants.? C.1. Alter Ego $3 30. To the extent any of the Backpage Defendants assert that th@@ not liable for the claims of Jane Doe because of their status as a business entity, or because? were acting on behalf of another person or business entity, any such protections must be dci@arded because the Backpage Defendants have intentionally tried to use those protections to 21st 1ability for their knowingly illegal conduct, including pro?ting from conduct that they knew illegal. The only way to prevent an unjusti?ed loss to Jane Doe is to hold each of the Bacer Defendants liable and to disregard any protections that might otherwise be available beo?g of the effort by the Backpage Defendants to abuse those protections. This is particularthrue where the Backpage Defendants have taken significant profits from conduct that th@know is illegal, yet they would attempt to use those protections in order to avoid any lia?r accountability for their knowingly illegal conduct, and for knowingly accepting illegal profi% It is black letter law that individuals and entities, including corporate officers and owr?may be held liable if they participate in wrongful conduct or have knowledge of and approve of the wrongful conduct. Each of the Backpage Defendants knew @f the facts that are alleged in this complaint, including the fact they were accepting sign" n?tprof1ts from the illegal advertisements for sex on the Backpage website, including the advertisements for sex of Jane Doe, a minor. 31. To the extent any of the Backpage Defendants assert that they are not liable for the claims of the Backpage Defendants because of their status as a business entity, or because they were acting on behalf of another person or business entity, any such protections must be disregarded because the Backpage Defendants are the alter ego of one another. The Backpage Defendants tried to use a wide range of entities to deflect the fact that a few individuals and entities owned and controlled the Backpage website and took the pro?ts from its illegal operations. There has been such unity of ownership and interest that the separateness of the corporation has ceased to exist. D. THE HOTEL DEFENDANTS $3 32. Defendant America?s Inns, Inc. d/ a America?s Inn 8201 @est Fwy, Houston, TX 77074 (?America?s Inn?) is a Delaware corporation. 0 $9 33. America?s Inn is authorized to do business in Tex?gand systematically conducts business in Texas and in Harris County, Texas. . . . . 34. America Inn may be served by serving 1t??1stered agent for service of process, American Incorporators, Ltd., 1013 Centre Rd., Wilmington, DE 19805, or by any . other method authorized by law. 35. Defendant Texas Pearl, Inggaxas Pearl?) is a Texas corporation, with its headquarters and principal place of busine@n Texas. 36. At all relevant times?s Pearl owned, operated, and controlled the America?s Inn hotel at 8201 Southwest Fwy, Helggon, Texas 77074. 37. Texas Pearldbe served by serving its registered agent for service of process, Hadi Dhukka, 5615 Richm@Ave., Ste. 230, Houston, TX 77057, or by any other method authorized 0@ by law. 38. @erica?s Inns and Texas Pearl are referred to jointly as ?The Hotel Defendants.? E. LIABILITY 39. The use of Facebook and the Backpage website for the advertising and recruitment of minors for sex was so pervasive and known to Facebook and the Backpage Defendants that it cannot be said such conduct was so unforeseen as to prevent Facebook and the Backpage Defendants from being liable for such conduct. Rather, Facebook and the Backpage Defendants knowingly aided and assisted sex traffickers, including the sex trafficker who recruitedJane Doe from Facebook and posted the advertisements of Jane Doe on the Backpage website. Facebook and the Backpage Defendants knowingly benefited from this illegal and immoral activity. 40. Facebook and the Backpage Defendants are therefore liable for the?lgrduct of the sex traffickers on Facebook and the Backpage website, including the sex ??ker who posted advertisements of Jane Doe because they ratified this conduct and kn?@?ly reaped the benefits. Facebook and the Backpage Defendants knew that the sex trafficl@ were sexually abusing and exploiting children, including Jane Doe, yet did nothing because eir financial motive. Given these circumstances, Facebook and the Backpage Defendants ass be held vicariously liable for the actions of the sex traffickers, including the sex traffickgo'ls lane Doe. VENUE 41. Venue is proper in Harris Cou? exas pursuant to section of the Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code, because @bstantial part of the acts and omissions that gave rise to the sexual exploitation, human Uaff? and sexual assault of Jane Doe, a minor, occurred in Harris County, Texas. 42. Plaintiff fu? adopts and incorporates all other factual allegations contained elsewhere in this petitio{@ support of its venue allegations. 43. Ve??s proper as to all Defendants under Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code 15.005. QQ 44. Jane Doe alleges damages in excess of $10,000, and jurisdiction is proper in this Court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. ALLEGATIONS REGARDING FACEBOOK 45. With each passing day, the gateway to our community?s children is increasingly social media?and Facebook in particular. 46. People, including children, connecting with their friends, family, an%9mmunities are not the only ones passing through Facebook?s gateway. 47. For years now, Facebook has permitted sex traf?ckers 1,1 1 red access to the most vulnerable members of our society. 0@ 48. It has continually been used to facilitate human ? @@ndants? moderation practices, explaining that ?we need to stay away from the very idea of e?he posts, as you know.? 89. Backpage had goQ eason to conceal its editing practices: Those practices served to sanitize the content of innut?cjgle advertisements for illegal transactions, including those prostituting out and trafficking Janxg?e?even as the Backpage Defendants represented to the public and the courts that it merested content others had created. The Backpage Defendants? ad sanitization process proves they knew of their involvement in sex trafficking. 90. This practice by the Backpage Defendants of systematically editing its adult ads to conceal child human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of minors has been in effect for almost a decade. As early as 2008, the Backpage Defendants and their executives began instructing staff -14- responsible for screening ads (known as moderators) to edit the text of adult ads to conceal the true nature of the underlying transaction. 91. By October 2010, the Backpage Defendants and their executives formalized a process of both manual and automated deletion of incriminating words and phrases, primarily through a feature called the ?Strip Term from Ad Filter.? $3 92. At the direction of CEO Ferrer, the company programmed? electronic ?lter to ?strip??that is, to delete?hundreds of words indicative of sex traffi?@ the sex trafficking of minors and prostitution from ads before their publication. 0@ 93. The terms that the Backpage Defendants have a?wmatically deleted from ads before 0 )5 (I: publication include ?Lolita, teenager,? ?rape,? ?young,? ?er alert,? ?little girl,? ?teen,? ?fresh,? ?innocent,? and ?school girl.? <49 94. When the user (such as Jane Doe?s@cker) submitted an adult ad containing one of these ?stripped? words, the Backpage Defen??gCts)? Strip Term from Ad Filter would automatically delete the discrete word and the remainod?f the ad would be published. 95. While the Strip Ad Filter changed nothing about the true nature of the advertised transaction or the rea of the person being sold for sex (such as Jane Doe, who was 15 years old) the filter would s@ the ads so they looked (but were not) ?cleaner than ever.? 96. Manual>@nng entailed the deletion of language similar to the words and phrases that the Strip Term ff?d Filter automatically deleted?including terms indicative of the sexual exploitation @opos ed sexual assault of minors, including Jane Doe. By The Backpage Defendants? themselves estimated that by late 2010, they were editing ?70 to 80% of ads? in the adult section, whether manually or automatically. 97. Along with its automatic Strip Term Filter and Manual Editing, The Backpage Defendants also reprogrammed their electronic filters to coach human traffickers looking to exploit -15- minors using Backpage on how to post ?clean? ads selling minors and other victims, including Jane Doe, to be sexually assaulted. 98. Initially, when a user attempted to post an ad with a forbidden word, the user would receive an error message identifying the problematic word choice to ?help? the user, as Backpage CEO Ferrer puts it. For example, a user advertising sex with a ?teen? would get??meverror message ?sorry, teen is a banned term.? By simply redrafting the ad, the user would?ermitted to post a X) sanitized version. 0 99. Backpage employed a similarly helpful error messae'x ?age verification? process of adult ads. In October 2011, Ferrer directed his technology c?u tant to create an error message . . . when a user suppl1ed an age under 18 years. The message wg? appear informing the traff1cker that ?Oops! Sorry, the ad poster must be over 18 years of ges. With a quick adjustment to the poster?s . . . . age, the ad would post despite the fact that the adv?ement was st1ll that for the sexual expl01tat1on and sexual assault of a minor. 6% 100. In November 2010, Ferr6@ong with the Backpage Defendants, concluded that the error message method of sanitizing?r and other sex trafficking advertisements on Backpage was inefficient when the customer thelves was responsible for redrafting the ad after the error message. Therefore, instead of havird human trafficker or exploiter posting an advertisement edit the ad after submission, Ferr@rdered Backpage to implement a system to ?strip out a term after the customer submits @d and before the ad appears in the moderation queue.? This meant that upon the submissi?< @dants. In fact, all pro?ts within the corporate structure flow up to the US. based Amstel Ri??dings (of which Ferrer is the only member) for tax purposes and all Dutch entities are ignore . runst con?rmed in an email to the consulting ?rm, obtained by the United States Subco O?e investigating The Backpage Defendants? long history of human traf?cking, that Atlantis@edrijven is subject to United State tax on its earnings and serves as nothing more than a ?pass @ugh? entity owned by Ferrer, a United States citizen. C. REGARDING THE HOTEL DEFENDANTS C.1. Human trafficking and the sexual exploitation of minors is a rampant, well-known problem in the hotel industry. 139. According to the Polaris Project, one of the most commonly reported venues for seX traf?cking to the National Human Traf?cking Hotline is hotels and motels. It has long been recognized that exploiters and traf?ckers use hotel and motel rooms when setting up ?dates? between -31- victims of sex traf?cking and those individuals purchasing sex. Traf?ckers have long capitalized on the hotel industry?s refusal to adopt companywide anti?traf?cking policies, train staff on what to look for and how to respond, establish a safe and secure reporting mechanism, as well as the seclusion and privacy of hotel rooms. As aptly stated in a publication by Cornell University on the issue, ?the hospitality industry is undoubtedly involved in the sex traf?cking have an inherent responsibility to deter the crime and can be liable for failing to do s?ccording to a 2012 BEST study, 63% of traf?cking incidents happen in hotels, ranging from?4??fy to economy, with the majority of victims being children. The ease of access and anon @of hotels coupled with the internet websites like Backpage has led to an explosion in chilggxual exploitation nationwide and particularly in Houston. 65$ 140. In response to this horri?c trend in Otg?tel industry, several industry leaders and municipalities, including the City of Baltimore ais??tate of Connecticut, now require mandatory training on how to recognize and respond to th%?igns of human traf?cking and the sexual exploitation of minors. In spotting signs of human t1;a@ng and the sexual exploitation of minors, such as paying for a room with cash or a prepai?t card, another guest lingering outside the room for long periods of time, several guests cs -ng and going from the hotel without checking into a room, and minor children paying for rd a responsible hotel is able to train staff that can mitigate and prevent human traf?cking and @exual exploitation of minors from occurring on their premise. 141. Th 0 ntiment is re?af?rmed by the United States Department of Homeland Security?s Blue Campa?? end human traf?cking. In a recent Blue Campaign bulletin, the Department of Homeland Security outlines that traf?ckers have long used the hotel industry as a hotbed for human traf?cking and has recommended policies and procedures that the industry can take to help prevent human traf?cking and the sexual exploitation of minors. -32- C.2. Jane Doe was repeatedly exploited at the Hotel Defendants? properties. 142. During 2014, Jane Doe was repeatedly exploited at the Hotel Defendants? properties by her traf?cker. 143. Jane Doe would be instructed by her traf?cker to meet child molesters at their hotel located at 8201 Southwest Freeway in Houston, Texas. $3 144. Each of the Hotel Defendants refused to take any steps the authorities, properly intervene in the situation, or take reasonable security steps to @?ove awareness of sex traf?cking and or prevent the sexual exploitation of minors at theferties. 145. This failure lead to Jane Doe?s continued sexual@?) oitation and sexual assault while the Hotel Defendants turned a blind to the plague of hui?raf?cking and the sexual exploitation of minors at their location. 0 146. Upon information and belief, this @one to maximize pro?ts by: a. Reducing the cost of tr ing employees and managers of how to spot the signs of human traf?cking the sexual exploitation of minors and what steps to take; b. Not refusin? rentals in order to ?ll vacant rooms, even if those rentals were to min ho were being exploited by human traf?ckers, including Jane ?ecuriw costs by not having proper security measures, including a certi?ed security guard to help prevent human traf?cking at the hotel 'on; and Doe; c. d. @ut?ng down on the cost of employing lawyers to properly respond to law enforcement subpoenas requesting security footage and other information to assist in the prosecution of human traf?ckers. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST FACEBOOK D. FIRST CAUSE OF 147. Jane Doe incorporates each foregoing allegation. -33- 148. As a user on its website, Facebook owed a duty to Jane Doe to warn her of the known dangers of grooming and recruitment on Facebook by sex traf?ckers. 149. The danger sex traf?ckers posed to users such as Jane Doe was known to Facebook. 150. Facebook failed to exercise this duty and was negligent in one or more of the following, non?exclusive particulars: $3 a. Failure to warn of the dangers of grooming; b. Failure to warn of the dangers of recruitment; c. Failure to implement awareness campaigns or guards to ensure that users, including minors, were aware of sex traf?c?sing its website; d. Failure to implement any other meani @procedure to ensure its users were adequately warned of the dangers pos sex traf?ckers; and 0 e. Failure to exercise ordinary care. reasonably prudent person would have done under the same or simila@cumstances. 151. Each of Facebook?s negligent act? omissions, singularly or collectively, constituted negligence and proximately caused legal injur?gro Jane Doe. GROSS NEGLIGENCE E. SECOND CAUSE OF Acgr\) 152. Jane Doe incorpora?G ch foregoing allegation. 153. Facebook?s acts?omissions constitute gross neglect. 154. Viewed obg?g?y from the standpoint of Facebook at the time of the incident, Facebook?s acts andO (@ggions involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the @ntial harm to Jane Doe. 155. Q?sa result of Facebook?s gross neglect, Jane Doe was exposed to and did sustain serious injury. 156. Facebook?s gross negligence directly and proximately caused Jane Doe?s injuries. 157. Exemplary damages are warranted for Facebook?s gross negligence. -34- F. THIRD CAUSE OF 98.002 158. Jane Doe incorporates each foregoing allegation. 159. Each of Facebook?s negligent acts and omissions, singularly or collectively, constituted negligence and proximately violate Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 98.002. 160. Facebook had a duty not to knowingly bene?t from trafficking of $30ns, including Jane Doe. 161. Facebook breached this duty by knowingly facilitating the?3?> satisfaction, and avoid law enforcement detection of illegal acts; c. Designing implementing, in order to maximize revenue, a manual mo system intended to sanitize posted content advertising human traf ng, prostitution, and or the sexual exploitation of minors to give those appearance of promoting legal escort services as opposed to illegal ices; 5% d? Implementing a corporate policy to maximize revenue of sanitizing advertisements promoting human trafficking, prostitution, and/or sexual exploitation of minors instead of removing those advertisements from the Backpage website or reporting those advertisements to the proper law enforcement officers; e. Knowingly implementing a corporate policy in order to maximize profit from the adult section of the Backpage website that discouraged moderators and employees of Backpage from contacting the authorities and/ or advocacy groups when advertisements on the Backpage website clearly promoted human trafficking, prostitution, and/ or sexual exploitation of minors; ?36? f. Knowingly refusing to pull down advertisements (after Backpage had internally sanitized the ad either manually or with the use of the Strip Term from Ad Filter) that clearly demonstrated minors were being exploited and trafficked for sex; and g. Knowingly refusing to pull down advertisements after reports and or complaints that the advertisement was being used to exploit a minor. 167. As described throughout this petition and above, the Backpage dants received substantial financial benefits as a result of these acts and/ or omissions. Wen the Backpage Defendants received a direct financial benefit of the advertising fee paid<> @?ne Doe?s trafficker on the Backpage website, sexually exploiting Jane Doe while she was sa@1??60r. These acts, omissions, and/ or commissions were the producing, but for, and proxim??tg! use of Jane Doe?s injuries and damages. Therefore, the Backpage Defendants are in violatgi??f Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 0 Code 98.002. <3 B. SECOND CAUSE OF 168. Jane Doe incorporates each allegation. 169. The Backpage Defendants@d a duty of care to operate the Backpage website in a manner that did not sexually explo??or children, including Jane Doe. Moreover, the Backpage Defendants had a duty of care to %e reasonable steps to protect the foreseeable victims of the danger created by their acts and or@ns, including the danger created by their online marketplace for sex trafficking and their act?in perpetuating that marketplace by helping sex traffickers sanitize ads to avoid law and post their ads. 170. Backpage Defendants breached the foregoing duties because they knew, or should have known, that adults working as sex traffickers were using their website to post advertisements of minor children for sex, including such advertisements of Jane Doe. Despite this knowledge, the Backpage Defendants took no steps to protect those children, including Jane Doe. -37- 171. As a direct and proximate result of the Backpage Defendants? wrongful acts and omissions, Jane Doe suffered, and continues to suffer, severe injuries and damages including, but not limited to: a. Past and future conscious physical pain and mental anguish; b. Past and future medical expenses, including the expenses$? in reasonable probability will be incurred in the future; and c. Past and future pain and suffering. KC) C. THIRD CAUSE OF NEGLIGENCE 172. Jane Doe incorporates each foregoing allegation. 173. Jane Doe will show that the acts and/ or om@ns of the Backpage Defendants constitute gross negligence. The Backpage Defendant with willful, wanton disregard, both before and at the time of the incidents in question, giv@he extreme degree of risk of potential harm to Jane Doe and others, of which the Backpage @dants were aware. Despite this knowledge, the Backpage Defendants proceeded with the and omissions described above with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or wel a@@others, including Jane Doe. Accordingly, Jane Doe seeks an award of exemplary damages ag? the Backpage Defendants. D. FOURTH AND ABETTING 174. Jane Doe inonrates each foregoing allegation. 175. By tlle:@@se of conduct, acts, and omissions alleged herein, the Backpage Defendants intentionally aide? abetted, by assisting and participating with, and by assisting or encouraging each other, a??as the other Defendants, to commit the tortious result?including, but not limited to, violation of Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code 98.002, negligence, outrage, and gross negligence. 176. By the course of conduct, acts, and omissions alleged herein, the Backpage Defendants also intentionally aided and abetted, by assisting and participating with and by assisting or encouraging -38- each other, as well as Jane Doe?s trafficker, in the commitment of the tortious acts between themselves and along with each other Defendant. 177. With respect to assisting or encouraging, the Backpage Defendants? tortious acts, when viewed individually and separate apart from each other and the other Defendants and Jane Doe?s trafficker, were a breach of duty to Jane Doe and a substantial factor in causing rtious activity alleged herein. 178. Moreover, each of the Backpage Defendants had knox?ge that each member of the Backpage Defendants and Jane Doe?s trafficker?s conduct consti@) a tort; had the intent to assist the other Backpage Defendants and Jane Doe?s trafficker iggmmitting a tort; gave the other 0 Backpage Defendants and Jane Doe?s trafficker assistance ncouragement; and assistance by 179. With respect to assisting and parn?ng Jane Doe?s trafficker?s tortious result C) the Backpage Defendants provided substantl??l assistance to Jane Doe?s trafficker and the other the Backpage Defendants and Jane Doe trafficker?s to? re substantial factors in causing the tort. Defendants in accomplishing the tortious @313 the Backpage Defendants? own conduct, separate from Jane Doe?s trafficker and the @efendants? conduct, was a breach of duty to Jane Doe; and the Backpage Defendants? p?pation was a substantial factor in causing the tortious result. 180. Jane Doe, effore, seeks damages and remedies against each of the Backpage Defendants individualK? the aiding and abetting alleged herein. As aiders?and?abettors, all of the Backpage Defend?? are jointly and severally responsible with one another for the injuries and damages suf?mby Jane Doe. E. FIFTH CAUSE OF CONSPIRACY 181. Jane Doe incorporates each foregoing allegation. 182. Each of the Backpage Defendants entered into a civil conspiracy with the other Defendants herein. The acts of this conspiracy clearly demonstrate that the result was to accomplish -39- an unlawful purpose by unlawful means, including, but not limited to, promoting and assisting human traf?ckers in promoting sexual exploitation of minors, including Jane Doe. The Backpage Defendants had a meeting of the minds on the object of the conspiracy and its course of action, and at least one or more of the Backpage Defendants, as alleged herein, committed at least one or more unlawful, over acts to further the object or course of action of the conspiracy. $3 183. Jane Doe suffered injury and damages as a direct and proxima?ult of the wrongful act. The civil conspiracy alleged herein, and the individual predicate mix?bcn wrongful acts, and omissions alleged, were a direct, producing, and proximate cause of Ct@njuries and damages to Jane Doe. The civil conspiracy alleged herein, and the individual prec\-te misconduct, wrongful acts, and about the injury and damages to Jane omissions alleged, were moreover a substantial factor in bri Doe. Without such civil conspiracy alleged herein, and ?dividual predicate misconduct, wrongful acts, and omissions alleged, the injury and dama @uld not have occurred. Moreover, a person of ordinary intelligence in the Backpage Defengts? position would have foreseen that the damages alleged herein might result from the gi@@onspiracy alleged herein, and the individual predicate misconduct, wrongful acts, and om? alleged. 184. The damages an?uxaguedies sought by Jane Doe for the civil conspiracy alleged herein, and the individual predicat@?onduct, wrongful acts, and omissions alleged, include the following: a. 0&1 damages; 0 b. ?direct damages; consequential damages; d. exemplary damages; e. that a constructive trust be placed upon proceeds, funds, property, or anything else of value obtained by, or as a result of, the civil conspiracy; f. equitable remedy of disgorgement?that all pro?ts of the Defendants from the misconduct be disgorged in favor of the Plaintiff; -40- g. that the Court grant a receivership and appoint a receiver to inventory all proceeds, funds, property, or anything else of value obtained by or as a result of the conspiracy, trace any funds, and administer a trust (constructive or otherwise) for the benefit of the Plaintiff; h. reasonable and equitable attorneys? fees; i. prejudgment and post?judgment interest; j. court costs; and $3 k. that the Plaintiff be awarded and granted all other relief to which she may be justly entitled. $2 185. As co?conspirators, the Backpage Defendants areoj %y and severally with one another responsible for the injuries and damages suffered by Janxn . F. FIFTH CAUSE OF . 186. Jane Doe incorporates each foregomg al?ion. 187. The Backpage Defendants intentiog?l? misrepresented to Texans, including Jane Doe, the general public, United States Senate, (gigigw enforcement in Houston (1) its intent to work law enforcement in connection With the tr@1 mg and sexual expl01tation of minors, including Jane Doe, (2) the validity of the advertisef the Hotel Defendants are jointly and severally responsible with all other Defendants for \injuries and damages suffered by JD $2 0 JOINT SEVERAL 205. Each Defendant?s conduct violate?xas Civil Practice 8: Remedies Code 98.005. Therefore, each Defendant is jointly and seveg 1able for the entire amount of damages awarded by a jury in this case against any other Defend@t under Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code 98.005. 0 OF DAMAGES 206. Jane Doe trusl%the Court to evaluate the evidence and to properly assess the damages sustained. 207. Texas R@f Civil Procedure 47(c) requires Jane Doe to set forth the level of damages sought. In this Rule, and only in compliance with this Rule, Jane Doe states she expects to se?netary relief of $1,000,000 or more for the damages asserted. 208. Jane Doe reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount she seeks based on additional discovery, evidence presented at trial, and or the verdict of the Court. JURY DEMAND 209. Jane Doe demands a trial by jury. -47- PRAYER Wherefore, Jane Doe respectfully requests judgment against Defendants for actual damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, pre? and post?judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of suit, attorney fees, and all other relief, at law or in equity, to Which she may be justly entitled. 1 86 REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Cg Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, each Defendant, i?quested to disclose the information or material described in Rule 194.2 Within 50 days afters@ice. Respectfully subt ANNIE PC HIE McAdams By: 6 @1 nnie McAdams @11an Bar No. 24051014 Matthew S. Parmet Texas Bar No. 24069719 1150 Bissonnet Houston, Texas 77005 phone 713 785 6262 fax 866 713 6141 an 11113111 adant1spcc 0:11 1111t?17 r111 adamspt 0:11 C) THE GALLAGHER LAW FIRM 1 Michael T. Gallagher Texas Bar No. 07586000 Pamela McLemore Texas Bar No. 24099711 Boyd Smith Texas Bar No. 18638400 2905 Sackett Street Houston, Texas 77098 Phone 713 222 8080 Fax 713 222 0066 ?48? SICO HOELSCHER HARRIS LLP David E. Harris Texas Bar No. 24049273 Louie J. Cook Texas Bar No. 24101191 802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 900 Corpus Christi, Texas 98401 phone 361 653 3300 $2 fax 361 653 3333 dilarris @252 1131121137. (?01511 Cg 0 0k 11 121m at 0 0 Attorneys for Jane -49-