SUM-100 amines-n NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: BIRD RIDES, INC.. 3 Delaware corporation. dlbia (a was At. commence).- BIRD: neurnon HOLDINGS. a Delaware ?giggling COPY corporation. dibla XIAOMI USA. lNc.. a Superior Court of Cia?'fgmia California corporation; SEGWAY a Delaware 0? 1-08 Angeies corporation; and DOES 1?100. inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY UCT 1 9 2018 (L0 EST DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE . - TINA OGATA: JOAN ALEX KEITH slim" Carrel, Emmy? 0100!"! NATASA REBECCA DAVID and By: lsooc Lovo Do ANDREA ROSENTHAL. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated sea?oor You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information ow. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS alter this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this cornt and have copy sowed on the plaintiff. Atelier 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 lnfonnation at the California Courts Onirne Sail-Help Center (m.coudinfo.ca.govfsetilreip). 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 tile your response on time. you may lose the case by default. and your wages, money. and property may be taken without further wan-ring 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-.rant to call an attorney referral service. if you cannot afford an altcmey. you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal senrices program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the Califomla Legal Services Web site (m.lawneiocaiifomla.ory). the Califomla Courts Ontine Self-Help Center (wwmocur?nr?ocagovfsoiineip). or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived less and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before me court will dismiss the case. trig? domandodo. Si no responds dontro do 30 dies. is code puedo dooio?ir on so contra sin oscucnorsu version. Leo is infonnocion a can nus . Tiono 30 oins DE CALENDARIO despuos do one to entreguen osla citacion popeios iogales para presenter one respuosia por escdto en esta cone tracer one so ontregue una copia oi domandanlo. Una carts uno_ilomoda toici?cnica no to protogen. Sn rospuosta por escnl'o liens qua ostar on tomato iogaiconecto at doses quo procoson so soon on is code. Es posibio one boys on i'ormuiorio qua usiodpuoda usarpara so respuosto. Pueo?e onconirar estos ionnuian?os do is carts ymos inionrracion on at Centre do Ayuda do too Codes do (vvww.suoorte.ca.gov). on is bibliotoca do ioyos do on ccndado 0 on to code one is quodo mos cores. Si no pueo?e pagaria cuota do presoniocion, pida at secretarto do in code one is do on fonnrrion?o do oxencion do page do circles. Si no presents so respuesta a tiempo. puodo pordor at ease par is code to padre guitar so sueido, dinoro biones sin mos advortencia. Hay circa requisites iogaies. Es recornendobie qua Home a un obogado inmediatamonte. Si no conooe a un obogado. puedo iiamora an sondcio do romisidn a abogados. Si no puode pager a on abogodo, es posibie one cumpla con loo requisites para obtoner servicios iogoios gratuitos do on programs do sorvicios iogoios so: ?les do lucro. Foods oncontrar ostos grupos sin tines do More on at site web do Coilibmia Logs! Serums. llwmiawholpoallfomlaorg}, on at Contra do Ayudo do too Cortes do Califomia, Waucortenagov) poniondoso en contacto con is code a or coiogio do abogados locales. AVISO: Par toy. is oorto done derociro a reciomor loo curries ins castes exonios por imponor un gravomon sabre coolquior recuperacion o'e $10,000 6 mos do vaiorrecibida medionte on acuordo 0 one ooncesion do arbitrajo on on caso do doreciro civil. none quo pager ei gravomon do is code antes do quo to code pueda desochor oi caso. The name and address ?the court ?53 Los Angeles Superior Court - Central District nombro drroccron do Ia corio es): Stanley Musk Courthouse 111 North Hill Street Los Angeles. CA 90012 The name. address. and telephone number of plaintiff?s attomey. or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nonrbre, to d?rreccidn at nr'rmoro do tel?r?ono do! abogado doi domandanto. do! domandanie one no lions abogado. as): Jeffrey Lee Costell. Costeil and Cornelius Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Airs uremslaanta Monica. CA 90401. (310) 458-5959 DATE: OCT SHERRI R. CARTER Clerk. by r/u . Deputy (Poona) (Secretario) (Aol'unto) (For proof of service of this summons. use Proof of Service of Summons (form (Para pnroba do entroga do osta citation use oi ionnuiario Proof of Service of Summons. NOTICE To THE PERSON SERVED: You are served [5m] 1. as an individual defendant 2. as the person sued under the ?ctitious name of (specify): 3, :3 on behalf of (spacing: under: I: see 416.10 (corporation) :3 GOP 416.60 (minor) 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) I: other (specify): 4. by personal delivery on (date): Flue-1M1 . cng?i 0 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name. State Barnumber. and address}: FOR COURT USE ONLY "mes Costeii SBN 93688 - 5? nd Cornelius Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue. STE 450 Santa Monica, CA 90401 coNFg??fa?gP TELEPHONE no; (310) 458-5959 FAX no; (310) 458-7959 ORll Court oi California 01 Los Angeles GET 1 9 2018 tent B. Carter. Executive Oil'iceriClerlt oi Court By: tease Lave, Deputy moans? son tNarne): Plaintiffs (swamps COURT or CALIFORNIA. counrv or Los Angeles - Central District STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street MAILING ADDRESS: mo ZIP coca: Los Angeles. CA 90012 same-i w: Stanley Mask Courthouse CASE NAME: DANIELLE BORGIA. at. at. v. BIRD et. al. CD CASE COER SHEET Complex Case Designation Unlimited Limited I: Counter CI Joinder (Amount (Amount JUDGE. demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.402) DEPT: 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 Mo (22) Breach gymnamMW (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules anon?3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) AntitrustiTrade regulation (03) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal InjuryiProperty I: other collections (09) detect (10) Damageanoiui Death) Tort [3 insurance coverage (18) Mass ion (40) Asbestos (04) Other coniract <37) Securities litigation (23) Product liability (24) Real Property I: Environmentalf'i'oxlclort (30) Medical malpractice {45) Eminent domalniinverse insurance coverage claims arising from the Other pupom (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) (41} Business tortlunfalr business practice (07) Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detaincr Enforcement otiudgment (20) Commercial (31) Residential (32) Defamation (13) Fraud (16) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint '3 RICO (27) '?lelleciua' Property (19) ?"193 (33} Other complaint (not specified above} (42) Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tori (35) Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21} Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not speci?ed above) ?43} Em Icyment [j Wrongfuitermination (as) Writoimandate(02) Other employment (15) Other Judicial review (39) 2. This case [Ki 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. [3 Large number of separately represented parties b. Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel issues that will be time?consuming to resolve c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence d. Large number of witnesses e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties. states, or countries. or In a federal court f. Substantial postjudgmentjudiciai supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): monetary om nonmonetary: declaratory or injunctive relief Number of causes of action (specify): This case is is not a class action suit. . If there are any known related cases, ?le and serve a notice of related was. (You may use form Chit-015.) Date: October 18. 2018 Jefire Lee Costeli OR PRINT NAME) c. .punltive mere-so NOTICE Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paper tiled 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. - File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. a if this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Califomla 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 on . 1d hit-01 ON HOW TO COMPLETE COVER SHEET 0 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing Fig-st Papers. If you are ?ling a ?rst paper (for example. a complaint) in a civil case. you must complete and ?le. 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 ?ts 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 ?le a cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in a civil case may subject a party. its counsel. or both to sanctions under ruies 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 de?ned 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 attomey?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 prejudgrnent writ of attachment. The identi?cation of a case as a rule 3340 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management miss. unless a defendant ?les 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 )cinder 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 ?33? ?3 wmp'ex' case 'rvres mo EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Auto (22)-Personel InjuryiProperty Breach of ContrectMlarranty (06) Rules of Court Rules anon-Mlle) Death Breach of RentaliLease Regulation (03) Uninsured Motorist (45) (if the Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (10) case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) motorist claim subject to ContracliWarranty Breach-Seller Securities Litigation (28) arbitration, check this gem Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Environmentalfl'oxic Tort (30) instead ofAuto) Negsgent Breach of Contract! Insurer]: enemy a ng stone ry complex O?ter Breach of Contractharranty case type listed above) (41) Tort Collections (cg. money owed. open Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos (04} book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Judgn'lent (20) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case$eller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment (Out of Asbestos Personal Injury; Other Promissory NotoiCollectlons County) wrong-[u] Death Case Confession of Judgment (non- PdeIJd Nobility (not 251385105 or Insurance Coverage (not domestic ?jams, (24) complex) (13) Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice (45) Auto smrmatlon Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice? Other COVEFSEB (not unpaid taxes) Physicians 8: Surgeons Other Contract (37) Pet?ionICerli?cation of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid T8168 Malpractice Other Contract Dispute 00165 gamment of Jodgmem Other PUPDIWD (23) 308' Premises Liability (e 9.. slip Eminent Miscellaneous Comrllalm and taI l) Condemnation (14) RICO (27) Intentional Bodily Wrongful Eviction (33) (not WSW (e assault. vandalism) Intentional Initiation of Other Real Property quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Declare Relief Only elief Only (non- Emotional Distress Mort a 9 Foreclosure "casino na 5 ass as rty (not eminent Other domain. or 0m?; ?mm? ,9 (Other) Tort foreclosure) cm, mp "1 Business TortlUnialr Business Unlawful Dotolnor (non-tor?hon-complex) Flaw? (?71 ?mm? Miscellaneous Civil Petition Civil Rights discrimination. Residential (32) Partnemhlp and Corporate false arrest) (not civil Drugs (38) {little case involves illegal Governance (21) harassment) (08) drugs. check this Item; chemise. Other Petition {not sped?ed Defamation (13.9.. slender. libel) report as Commercial or Residential) my, (43) Intelieduai Property (19) Petition Arbitration Award (11) ElderiDependent Adult memorial Negligence (25) Writ ofMandate (02) Legal Malpracum m?Mm?ni?m?ve ?Eridanus Elem? mt Other Professional Malpractice Witt?Mandamus; on Umited Court Petition for Name Change (not medical or (9930 Case Matter Petition for Relief pm,? me Em IOther Tort (35) Writ-Other Li?t?ad Court Case Claim 93"? Review Other Civil Petition Wrong? Tammi? (33) Other Judicial Review (39) Other Employmem (15) Review of Health Of?cer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Male cM-olo (Rev. July 1.2007] CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Panelist! W. SHORT Borgia, et. al. v. Bird Rides, inc, et. al. CASE NUMBER CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTEFECATE 0F GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Step 1 After completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet (Judicial Council form CM-010), ?nd the exact case type in Column A that corresponds to the case type indicated in the Civil Case Cover Sheet. Step 2: In Column B, check the box for the type of action that best describes the nature of the case. Step 3: In Coiumn C, circle the number which explains the reason for the court ?ling location you have 1. Class actions must be ?led In the Stanley Mosh Courthouse, Central District. chosen. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Court Filing Location (Column Cl 2. Permissive tiling In central district. 3. Location where cause of action arose. 4. Mandatory personal injury filing in North District 5. Location where performance required or defendant resides. 6. Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle. 7. Location where petitioner resides. 8. Location wherein defendanlfrespondent functions wholly. 9. Location where one or more of the parties reside. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner Of?ce. 11. Mandatory filing location (Hub Cases unlawful detainer, limited non-collection, limited collection, or personal injury). A Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons - Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above Auto (22) A7100 Motor Vehicle Personal InjuryIPrOperty DamageNVrongfui Death 1, 4. 11 12 Uninsured Motorist (46) A7110 Personal Injuryi'Property DamageANrongfui Death - Uninsured Motorist 1. 4. 11 A6070 Asbestos Pro Dame 1, 11 Asbestos (04) party no t? El A7221 Asbestos .. Personal InjuryIWrongful Death 1, 11 lg Product Liability (24} In A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or lo?denvlronmental) 1. 4. 11 a. ?5 A7210 Medical Mai ractlce- lcians?: Su cone 1.4.11 Medical Malpractice (45) hits to 1 4 11 a A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice - I: El A7260 Premises Liability slip and tall) 1 4 11 it Other Personal 8 '9 injury Property El A7230 Intenlionai Bodily InjuryIProperty DemageNVrongfuI Death 1 4 11 Damage wrongm' assault. vandalsm, etc) Death (23) 1:1 A7270 Intentional Initiation of Emotional Distress 4' ?1 A7220 Other Personal Injurerroperty DamageANrongful Death 1' 4' 1 1 LAch 109 (Rev 2116) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 Lesc Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of 4 5110111 TITLE: case NUMBER Borgia, et. at. 0. Bird Rides, Inc., et. al. A Applicable Civit Case Cover Sheet Type oi Action Reasons - See Step 3 Category No. (Check only one) Above Business T011 (07) El A6029 Other CommerciaUBuslness Tort (not fraudlbreach of contract) 1, 2. 3 1: E8 Civll Rights (08) A6005 Civil 1, 2, 3 5 9-5 Defamation (13) 1:1 A6010 Defamation (slenderllibel) 1, 2. 3 3 Fraud (16) El A6013 Fraud (no contract) 1. 2. 3 2 :1 A6017 Legal Malpractice 1. 2, a a Professional Negligence (25) 9E El A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) 1.2, 3 2 Other (35) 1:1 A6025 Other Non-Personal lnjuryt'Propeity Damage tort 1. 2, 3 19 El A6024 Other EmpioymentCompiainl Case 1.2.3 Other Employment (15) . IE A6109 Labor 10 "Am Breach of RentallLeaee Contract (mm. 1" eviction) 2' 5 arm? mm? :1 A6008 ContractiWarranty Breach -Seller (no fraudlnegllgence) 2' 5 ("01 insurance) El A6019 Negligent Breach of (300th2an {no fraud} 1' 2' 5 A6028 Other Breach of ContractJWarranty (not fraud or negilgertce) 1? 2' 5 '5 El A6002 Collections Case-Seller Pialnti? 5. B. 11 ,2 Collections (09) 8 El A6012 Other Promissory NotelCollectlons Case 5.11 El A6034 Collections Case-Purchased Dem (Charged 01101111301110 Debt 5. B. 11 Purdtased on or after Januam 1I 2014) insurance Coverage (18) El A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1, 2. 5. 8 El A6009 Contractual Fraud 1.2.3. 5 Other Contract (37) El A6031 Torllous Interference 1.2. 6.5 A6027 outerContteot Disputeinot 1. 2. 3. 8. 0 Condemnation (14) El A7300 Eminent DometnlCondemnetlon Number of parcels 2. 6 a Wrongfui Evtotion(33) A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 2. 7, CI #6016 Mortgage Foreclosure 2. 6 9? Other Real Property (26} 13 A6032 Quiet Title 2. 0 A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain. tandtorciltenant. foreclosure) 2. 6 .. 1:1 A6021 Unlewiul Detainer-Commerdeltnot drugs or 11110119101 eviction) s. 11 1:1 A6020 Untawtut notatner-Restoenttai (not drugs orwrongtul eviction} o. 11 UniaMul Detelner- (34) A6020F Unlawful oemtner-Post-Foreotoouro 2. o. 11 Unlawful Detainer-Dmgs (as) :1 A6022 Unlawful Deteiner?Drugs 2. e. 11 new 10911211112116) CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03?04 AND 0F LOCATION Page 2 014 SHORT TITLE: . CASE NUMBER Borgia. et. al. v. Bird Rides, Inc., et. at. A Applicable Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Reasons - See Step 3 Category No. (Check only one) Above Asset Forfeiture (05) El A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case 2, 3. 6 a Petition re Arbitration (11) El A0115 Petition to Compeli?Con?n'nNacate Arbitration 2, 5 d! '5 A6151 Writ Administrative Mandamus 2. 8 7% Writ of Mandate (02) El A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 3 1:1 A6153 wit: - Other Limited Court Case Review 2, 8 AntlinlstiTrade Regulation {03) Other Judicial Review (39) A6150 Other W111 IJuc?cial Review :1 A6003 Regulation 1.2.8 vaisionaiiy Complex Litigation Enforcement of Judgment A0112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case A6 Racketeerlng (RICO) Case I Construction Detect {10) El A6007 Construction Defect 1. 2. 3 ??339 ?355 13 A611le Ctalms involving Mass Tort 1. 2. 3 Securities Litigation (23) El A6035 Securities Litigation Case 1. 2. 8 Toidc Tort . Environmental (30) [Si A6036 Toxlo Tort/Environmental 1. 2. 3. 3 Insurance Coverage Claims from Complex Case (41) El A6014 insurance CoverageISubrogatlon (compile: case only) 1. 2. 5. 8 A6160 Abstract of Judgment Enforcement A6107 Contession of Judgment (non-domestic relations) 2. 9 Judgment (20) A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2. 8 A6114 PetitiorVCerti?wte for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2. 8 Miscellaneous Civil Complaints Other Complaints {Not Speci?ed Above) (42) glacial: A6030 Declaratory Relief Only A6040 lniunclive Relief Only (not domestici'harassment) A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortinon-oompisx) A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortInon-compiex) Governance (21) a 2. 8 El A6121 Civil Harassment 2. 3. 9 3 15' A6123 Workplace Harassment 2. 3. Other Pew? (Not I: A6124 Eideri'DependentAdult Abuse Case 2. 3. Speci?ed Above) (43) 1:3 A6190 Election Contest 2 a A61 10 Petition for Change of NamefChonge of Gender 2? 7 a A6170 Petition for Relieftrom Late Ciairn Law 2. 3_ 0 1:1 A0100 Petition 2' 9 wow 10% too? 211s) CASE COVER SHEET ABDENDUM Looai Rois 2.3 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 014 LASC Approved 03-04 SHORT TITLE: Borgia, et. al. v. Bird Rides, Inc, at. al. CASE NUMBER Step 4: Statement: of Reason and Address: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown under Column for the type of action that you have selected. Enter the address which is the basis for the ?ling location, including zip code. (No address required for class action cases). REASON: [38.5 9.010.811, ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: Step 5: Certi?cation of Assignment: I certify that this case is properly ?led in the Central District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc, ?392 et seq, and Local Rule Dated: October 18, 2018 (SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEYIFILENG PARTY) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING lTEIiflS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: Original Complaint or Petition. if filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 1 2 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form O. 4 Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 02/16). Paymentin full of the ?ling fee, unless there is court order for waiver. partial or scheduled payments. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form Chi-010, ifthe plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons. 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint. or other initiating pleading in the case. LACIV1DQ (Rev 2116) LASC Approved 03?04 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 0M SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY DE LOS ANGELES COURTHOUSE ADDRESS: Spring Street Courthouse 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE Reserved [or Clerk's File Stamp I FILEO Superior Court of Ca?Iomia County of Los Angeios 10/19/2018 Stern Cm. 5mm 05:03 I Get oICam Your case is assigned for all purposes to the judicial of?cer indicated below. CASE NUMBER: 188TCV01416 THIS FORM IS TO BE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ASSIGNED JUDGE DEPT ROOM ASSIGNED JUDGE DEPT ROOM v? Maren Nelson 17 Given to the of Record Sherri R. Carter, Executive Of?cer I C erk of court on 10/19/2018 By Isaac LOVO . Deputy Clerk (Date) LACIV 190 (Rev 6/18) NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT UNLIMITED CIVIL. CASE LASC Approved 05/06 ENSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLENG UNLEMITED CIVIL CASES The following critical provisions of the California Rules of Court, Title 3, Division 7, as applicable in the Superior Court, are summarized for your assistance. APPLICATION The Division 7 Rules were effective January l, 2007. They apply to all general civil cases. PRIORITY OVER OTHER RULES The Division '7 Rules shall have priority over all other Local Rules to the extent the others are inconsistent. CHALLENGE TO ASSIGNED JUDGE A challenge under Code of Civil Procedure Section ?0.6 must be made within 15 days after notice of assignment for all purposes to a judge, or if a party has not yet appeared, within 15 days of the ?rst appearance. TIME STANDARDS Cases assigned to the Independent Calendaring Courts will be subject to processing under the following time standards: COMPLAINTS All complaints shall be served within 60 days of ?ling and proof of service shall be ?led within 90 days. CROSS-COMPLAINTS Without leave of court ?rst being obtained, no cross-complaint may be ?led by any party after their answer is ?led. Cross~ complaints shall be served within 30 days of the ?ling date and a proof of service ?led within 60 days of the ?ling date. STATUS CONFERENCE A status conference will be scheduled by the assigned Independent Calendar Judge no later than 270 days after the ?ling of the complaint. Counsel must be fully prepared to discuss the following issues: alternative dispute resolution, bifurcation, settlement, trial date, and expert witnesses. FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE The Court will require the parties to attend a ?nal status conference not more than 10 days before the scheduled trial date. All parties shall have motions in limine, bi?ircation motions, statements of major evidentiary issues, dispositive motions, requested form jury instructions, special jury instructions, and Special jury verdicts timely ?led and served prior to the conference. These matters may be heard and resolved at this conference. At least five days before this conference, counsel must also have exchanged lists of exhibits and witnesses, and have submitted to the court a brief statement of the case to be read to the jury panel as required by Chapter Three of the Los Angeles Superior Court Rules. SANCTIONS The court will impose appropriate sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with Chapter Three Rules, orders made by the Court, and time standards or deadlines established by the Court or by the Chapter Three Rules. Such sanctions may be on a party, or if appropriate, on counsel for a party. This is not a complete delineation of the Division 7 or Chapter Three Rules, and adherence only to the above provisions is therefore not a guarantee against the imposition of sanctions under Trial Court Delay Reduction. Careful reading and compliance with the actual Chapter Rules is imperative. Class Actions Pursuant to Local Rule 2.3, all class actions shall be ?led at the Stanley Moslc Courthouse and are randomly assigned to a complex judge at the designated complex courthouse. If the case is found not to be a class action it will be returned to an Independent Calendar Courtroom for all purposes. *Provislonally Complex Cases Cases ?led as provisionally complex are initially assigned to the Supervising Judge of complex litigation for determination of complex status. If the case is deemed to be complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400 et seq., it will be randomly assigned to a complex judge at the designated complex courthouse. If the case is found not to be complex, it will be returned to an Independent Calendar Courtroom for all purposes. LACIV190 (Rev one) . OF CASE ASSIGNMENT UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE LASC Approved OSIOB ENSTRUCTIONS son HANDLING UNLIMETED Clvn. CASES The following critical provisions of the California Rules of Court, Title 3, Division 7, as applicable in the Superior Court, are summarized for your assustance. APPLICATION The Division 7 Rules were effective January l, 2007. They apply to all general civil cases. PRIORITY OVER OTHER RULES The Diwalon 7 Rules shall have priority over all other Local Rules to the extent the others are inconsistent. CHALLENGE TO ASSIGNED JUDGE A?challenge under Code of Civil Procedure Section l70.6 must be made within 15 days alter notice of assignment for all purposes to a judge, or if a party has not yet appeared, within 15 days of the ?rst appearance. TIME STANDARDS Cases assigned to the Independent Calendaring Courts will be subject to processing under the following time standards: COMPLAINTS All complaints shall be served within 60 days of ?ling and proof of service shall be ?led within 90 days. CROSS-COM PLAINTS Without leave of court ?rst being obtained, no cross-complaint may be ?led by any party after their answer is filed. Cross-complaints shall be served within 30 days of the ?ling date and a proof of service ?led within 60 days of the ?ling date. STATU CONFERENCE A status conference will be scheduled by the assigned independent Calendar Judge no later than 270 days alter the ?ling of the complaint. Counsel must be fully prepared to discuss the following issues: alternative dispute resolution, bifurcation, settlement, trial date, and expert witnesses. FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE The Court will require the parties to attend a final status conference not more than H) days before the scheduled trial date. All parties shall have motions in limine, bifurcation motions, statements of major evidentiary issues, dispositive motions, requested form jury instructions, specialjuty instructions, and special jury verdicts timely ?led and served prior to the conference. These matters may be heard and resolved at this conference. At least five days before this conference, counsel must also have exchanged lists of exhibits and witnesses, and have submitted to the court a brief statement ofthe case to be read to the jury panel as required by Chapter Three of the Los Angelcs Superior Court Rules. SANCTIONS The court will impose appropriate sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with Chapter Three Rules, orders made by the Court, and time standards or deadlines established by the Court or by the Chapter Three Rules. Such sanctions may be on a party, or if appropriate, on counsel for a party. This is not a complete delineation of the Division 7 or Chapter Three Rules, and adherence only to the above provisions is therefore not a guarantee against the imposition of sanctions under Trial Court Delay Reduction. Careful reading and compliance with the actual Chapter Rules is imperative. Class Actions Pursuant to Local Rule 2.3, all class actions shall be ?led at the Stanley Mask Courthouse and are randomly assigned to a complex judge at the designated complex courthouse. If the case is found not to be a class action it will be returned to an independent Calendar Courtroom for all purposes. *Provisionally Complex Cases Cases ?led as provisionally complex are initially assigned to the Supervising Judge of complex litigation for determination of complex status. if the case is deemed to be complex within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.400 ct seq, it will be randomly assigned to a complex judge at the designated complex courthouse. If the case is found not to be complex, it will be returned to an Independent Calendar Courtroom for all purposes. memes (Rev12l17) NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE LASC Approved 05106 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tpl- ?If? - COSTELL 3L CORNELIUS Law Comomtion 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 had JEFFREY LEE COSTELL (STATE BAR #93688) LEWIS B. ADELSON (STATE BAR #185075) JUSTIN COHANGHADOSH STATE BAR #3 903 5) COSTELL CORNELIUS LAW CORPORATION 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 45 8~5959 Facsimile: (3 I 0) 458-7959 DANIEL MCGEE (STATE BAR 218947) CATHERINE LERER (STATE BAR #1 7225 7) LERER ASSOCIATES 11300 Olympic Blvd, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (3 1 0) 231-9717 Facsimile: (310) 231-9715 CONFORMED COPY ORIGINAL FILED Superior Court at Calilomia County of Los Angales OCT 19 2018 Sherri R. Carter. Executive Of?oedClerk of Gourl By: Isaac Lovo. Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiffs Danielle Borgia, Tina Ogata, Joan Howell Alex Bole, Keith Finkelstein, Natasa Kojic, Rebecca Martinez, David Petersen, and Andrea Rosenthal, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT DANIELLE TINA JOAN ALEX KEITH NATASA REBECCA DAVID and ANDREA ROSENTHAL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BIRD RIDES, INC., a Delaware corporation, dfb/a NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC., 3 Delaware corporation, d/b/a XIAOMI USA, INC, a California corporation; SEGWAY INC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: :chotsle CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: I. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (SCOOTER 2. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (MANUFACTURING 3. NEGLIGENCE (SCOOTER 4. NEGLIGENCE MANUFACTURING 5. NEGLIGENCE PER SE (SCOOTER 6. NEGLIGENCE PER SE (MANUFACTURING 7. GROSS NEGLIGENCE (SCOOTER Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 'T?rml- rum ass?oso . ?F'av- Him marrow COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue Surte 450 Plaintiffs hereby allege as follows: 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. GROSS NEGLIGENCE (MANUFACTURING BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR AN INTENDED PURPOSE (SCOOTER BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR AN OR INTENDED PURPOSE (MANUFACTURING BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (SCOOTER BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (MANUFACTURING PUBLIC NUISAN DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (RE: AIDING AND ABETTING ASSAULTS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for which class certi?cation will be sought by Plaintiffs Lorenzo Francisco Borgia, a minor by and through his mother and legal guardian, Danielle Borgia (?Borgia?), Tina Ogata (?Ogata?), Joan Howell (?Howell?), Alex Bule Keith Finkelstein (?Finkelstein?), Natasa Kojic (?Kojic?), Rebecca Martinez (?Martinez?), David Petersen (?Petersen?), Andrea Rosenthal (?Rosenthal,? and collectively with Borgia, Ogata, Howell, Bule, Finkelstein, Kojic, Martinez and Petersen as, the ?Plaintiffs?). 2. Plaintiff Finkelstein will be referred to hereinafter as the ?Rider Plaintiff.? COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 (11m - Fair 442?7040 COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation Plaintiffs Borgia, Ogata, Howell, Bule, Kojic, Martinez, Petersen and Rosenthal will be collectively referred to hereinafter as the ?Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs.? 4. Plaintiffs Bule, Kojic, Martinez, Petersen and Rosenthal will be referred to hereinafter as the ?Bird Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs.? 5. Plaintiffs Borgia, Ogata, Howell and Rosenthal will be referred to hereinafter as the ?Lime Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs.? 6. Plaintiffs, and each of them, bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, whom have, will and/or are endangered of sustaining injuries and/or damages arising out of the actions and/or inactions of Defendants Bird Rides, Inc, a Delaware corporation, dfb/a Bird Neutron Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Lime Xiaomi USA, Inc., a California corporation (?Xiaomi?); Segway Inc., a Delaware corporation (?Segway?) and DOES 1?100, inclusive (?Does,? and collectively with Bird, Lime, Xiaomi and Segway as, the ?Defendants?), as discussed herein below. Defendants Bird, Lime and Does 1-50 will be referred to hereinafter as the ?Scooter Defendants.? Defendants Xiaomi, Segway and Does 51?100 will be referred to hereinafter as the ?Manufacturing Defendants.? 7. This case arises out of and relates to the unlawful acts and omissions of the Scooter Defendants, and each of them, and to their indiscriminate, negligent, grossly negligent and/or unlawful ?deployment? (as de?ned below) of ?eets of defective ?Scooters? (as de?ned below), which were manufactured by Manufacturing Defendants, onto California?s public streets, sidewalks, bike paths, piers, byways, alley ways, rights of way, parks, squares, parking lots and structures, gathering places and other public places (collectively, the ?Public Places?). While acting under the guise of the commendable goals of furthering personal freedom and mobility and protecting the environment, the Defendants, and each of them, are endangering the health, safety and welfare of riders, pedestrians and the general public. In this regard, as alleged below, Defendants, and each of them, knew and/or should have known that their Scooters are, w0uld become and would continue to be an unsafe, dangerous and damaging public nuisance as - 3 COMPLAINT Santa Monica. California 90401-1007 T's-iv {1101 - For (110') COSTELL 3r. CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue Suite 450 used in the manners in which the Defendants, and each of them, intended and/or should have known the Scooters were going to be, are being and would continue to be used. As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, scores (if not hundreds) of riders and pedestrians and members of the public have suffered, are continuing to suffer and will continue to suffer egregious and avoidable injuries and damage to their person and property and to suffer restricted access to, ?our and through Public Places. In ?dumping? thousands of Scooters onto our streets, sidewalks and other Public Places within a very short period of time, without any signi?cant, reasonable or appropriate warning to or approval by public authorities, the Scooter Defendants, and each of them, have acted in a grossly negligent manner and outrageously, maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively and/or with a conscious disregard for I the health, safety and welfare of the Plaintiffs, and each of them, and the general public, thereby justifying the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages. 8. Plaintiffs, and each of them, will and do hereby petition this Court to allow them to represent and prosecute claims against Defendants, and each of them, in a class action proceeding, on behalf of those similarly situated who have been injured and/or damaged by the unlawful practices and other acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, arising out of or relating to the motorized electric scooters owned, provided, maintained, manufactured or caused to be manufactured or adapted, designed or caused to be designed or adapted, Operated, made available for use and/or otherwise put into the stream of commerce (collectively, ?deployed,? ?deploy,? ?deploying? or ?deployment,? as appropriate to the context) by Defendants, and each of them, (the ?Scooters,? and individually, a ?Scooter?) during the ?Class Period? (as de?ned below?. 9. Scooter Defendants? deployment of the Scooters throughout the Public Places of California has caused civil unrest with individuals throwing the Scooters into trashcans, dumpsters, the Venice Canals and the Paci?c Ocean, in addition to lighting the Scooters on ?re (which, due to their batteries, can cause explosions) and burying them into the sand of California?s beaches. - 4 - COMPLAINT Santa Monica, California 90401?1007 Tpl- ?552.40?) I Fmr- COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue Suite 450 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Bird, Lime, Xiaomi and Segway are all subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by Virtue of their business dealings, acts, omissions and/or transactions throughout the State of California and in the County of Los Angeles, in addition to placing the Scooters directly into California?s stream of commerce. Further, Bird, Lime and Xiaomi have their principal places of business and headquarters located within the State of California. Additionally, Xiaomi was incorporated in the State of California. 11. Venue is proper in this county because Bird, Lime, Xiaorni and Segway all conduct business in Los Angeles, California and a great number of the business dealings, acts, omissions and/or transactions complained of herein took place within Los Angeles County. PARTIES 12. Plaintiff Borgia is the mother of Lorenzo Francisco Borgia, who is a citizen of and resides in the County of Los Angeles, with her son, who was injured on or about July 3, 2018, when, in essence and among other things, a rider on a Lime Scooter crashed into him. As a proximate result of the same, he, among other things, has seriously damaged eight (8) of his front teeth and has required stitches due to a laceration on his lip. 13. Plaintiff Ogata, a California citizen who resides in the County of Los Angeles, was injured on or about July 13, 2018, when, in essence and among other things, she tripped over three (3) Lime Scooters that were left on the sidewalk. As a proximate result of the same, she, among other things, has suffered a broken le? wrist and ring ?nger and has pain emanating from the left portion of her ribcage. 14. Plaintiff Howell, a California citizen who resides in the County of Los Angeles, was injured on or about June 14, 2018, when, in essence and among other things, she tripped over a Lime Scooter that was left on the sidewalk right in front of the exit of a coffee shop she was visiting. As a proximate result of the same, she, among other things, has suffered injuries to her left hand, both knees, lower back and pelvis. 15. Plaintiff Bule, a California citizen who resides in the County of San Diego, - 5 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tnl- I?ll!? ?52.50?) Paw COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation suffered damages to his car on or about May 21, 2018, when, in essence and among other things, a rider on a Bird Scooter crashed into his car. 16. Plaintiff Finkelstein, a California citizen who resides in the County of Los Angeles, was injured on or about September 21, 2018, when, in essence and among other things, the accelerator of the Scooter we has riding locked up, causing him to lose control of the 'l Scooter and fall off. As a proximate result of the same, he, among other things, has suffered injuries to the right portion of his ribcage, both knees, right elbow, right portion of his hip and his buttocks. 17. Plaintiff Kojic, a California citizen who resides in the County of Los Angeles, was injured on or about June 25, 2018, when, in essence and among other things, a rider on a Bird Scooter crashed into her from behind. As a proximate result of the same, she, among other things, has suffered injuries to her left big-toe, right wrist and left knee. 18. Plaintiff Martinez, a California citizen who resides in the County of Los Angeles, was injured on June 30, 2018, when, in essence and among other things, she tripped over a Bird Scooter left on the sidewalk As a proximate result of the same, she, among other things, has suffered a broken ?fth metatarsal on her left foot. 19. Plaintiff Petersen, a California citizen who resides in the County of Los Angeles, was injured on June 17, 2018, when, in essence and among other things, a Bird rider crashed into him from behind. As a proximate result of the same, be, among other things, has a torn bicep distal tendon, which required surgery. 20. Plaintiff Rosenthal, a California citizen who resides in the County of Los Angeles, on multiple occasions, was, in essence and among other things, unable to park her car in handicapped parking spaces due to Bird and/or Lime Scooters blocking the handicapped parking spaces. Rosenthal has a degenerative disease and arthritis in her knees and, like other handicapped individuals, requires direct access to parking that is in close proximity to Public Places and private places. 21. Both Bird and Lime are in the business of deploying Scooters to the general - 5 - Santa Monica, Califomin 90401-1007 'T'pl' I?ll? 0 Far f?Hf?. 442.7040 COSTELL Law Corporation [299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 public. 22. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Xiaomi and Segway manufacture the Scooters that are used by Bird, and Segway manufactures the Scooters that are used by Lime. 23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all relevant times herein, Defendant Bird is and was a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Santa Monica, California. Bird does substantial business in and has suf?cient minimum contacts within California, generally, and Los Angeles County, speci?cally, and has hundreds, if not thousands, of its Scooters littered all over the State of California and within Los Angeles County. 24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all relevant times herein, Defendant Lime is and was a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business located in San Mateo, California. Lime does substantial business in and has suf?cient minimum contacts within California, generally, and Los Angeles County, speci?cally, and, like Bird, has hundreds, if not thousands, of its Scooters littered all over the State of California and within Los Angeles County. 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all relevant times herein, Defendant Xiaomi is and was a California corporation, with its headquarters and principal place of business located in San Diego, California. Xiaomi does substantial business in and has suf?cient minimum contacts within California, generally, and Los Angeles County, Fspeci?cally, and has hundreds, if not thousands, of Scooters that it manufactured in the State of California and within Los Angeles County. 26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all relevant times herein, Defendant Segway is and was a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business located in Bedford, New Hampshire. Segway does substantial business in and has suf?cient minimum contacts within California, generally, and Los Angeles County, speci?cally, and has hundreds, if not thousands, of Scooters that it manufactured in the State of California 7 COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401- 1007 I'lln?l ASEAQSO - F?s-r- d?R_70?i0 COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation and within Los Angeles County. 27. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue such Defendants by ?ctitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to show the Does true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of the Defendants, and the Does, are legally responsible in some manner whether negligently, in warranty, strictly, intentionally, or otherwise, for the events and happenings herein referred to, and each of the Defendants proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and each class member, as herein alleged. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions and/or inactions of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered, and continue to suffer ?'om losses in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. CLASS ACTION DESIGNATION 29. This class action is brought pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves as well as all others similarly situated, with Plaintiffs proceeding as the representative members of the proposed subclasses de?ned as follows: a. All individuals who have been, will be andfor are endangered of being injured andlor damaged (whether suffering personal and/or property damages and/or injuries) by Scooters deployed by Bird, within the last two (2) years and continuing while this action is pending (the ?Class Period?), while riding one of Bird?s Scooters (the ?Bird Rider Subclass?), with the Rider Plaintiff as the class representative for the Bird Rider Subclass (the ?Bird Rider Representative?); 13. All individuals who have been, will be and/or are endangered of being injured and/or damaged (whether suffering personal and/or property damages and/or injuries) by Scooters owned, operated and/or maintained by Bird, within the Class Period, by any individual riding a Scooter and/or leaving a Scooter in Public Places (the ?Bird Pedestrian Subclass,? and collectively with the Bird Rider Subclass as, the ?Bird Class Members?). including, but not limited to, pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists . 3 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica. California 90401-1007 Tpl- {1.10} a For {1 I 0? COST ELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation and wheelchair users, with the Bird Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the Bird Pedestrian Class (the ?Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives,? and together with the Bird Rider Representative, as the ?Bird Representatives?); 0. All individuals who have been, will be and/or are endangered of being injured andlor damaged (whether suffering personal and/or property damages and/or injuries) by Scooters deployed (as de?ned above) by Lime, within the Class Period, while riding one of Lime?s Scooters (the ?Lime Rider Subclass?), with the Rider Plaintiff as the class representatives for the Lime Rider Class (the ?Lime Rider Representative?); and d. All individuals who have been, will be and/or are endangered of being injured andfor damaged (whether suffering personal and/or property damages and/or injuries) by Scooters owned, operated and/or maintained by Lime, within the Class Period, by any individual riding a Scooter and/or leaving a Scooter in Public Places (the ?Limo Pedestrian Subclass,? and collectively with the Lime Rider Class as, the ?Lime Class Members?), including, but not limited to, pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists and wheelchair users, with the Lime Pedestriaanublic Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the Lime Pedestrian Class (the ?Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives,? and collectively with the Lime Rider Representative as, the ?Lime Representatives?). 30. The classes of said persons within the State of California are so numerous that the joinder of all members is impracticable, and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a bene?t to the parties, the Court and the State of California as a whole. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Bird, Lime, Xiaomi and Segway, and each of them, through their actions andlor inactions have directly and/or proximately caused injuries and/or damages to the respective representatives and members of the subclasses alleged herein, and each of them. 31. Though the exact number and identity of the respective subclasses, as alleged herein, are not presently known, they can be identi?ed through coordinated discovery pursuant to the class action and through usual forms of publication or such other methods as approved by the Court. 32. There are common questions of law and fact arising out of Defendants? . 9 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401?1007 Tnl- mm . Fm" mm ASSIJTIHO COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation conduct, acts and omissions as alleged herein, as well as their continued practice of violating California law. These common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to: a. Whether Defendants are strictly liable for injuries andlor damages based on the Scooters being defective and/or containing inadequate warnings and/or operational or use information; 13. Whether Defendants were, are and continue to be, negligent with respect to members of the subclasses alleged herein, and each of them; c. Whether Defendants were, and continue to be, negligent per so with respect to members of the subclasses alleged herein, and each of them; d. Whether Defendants were, and continue to be, grossly negligent with respect to members of the subclasses alleged herein, and each of them; e. Whether Defendants breached the implied warranty of ?tness for a particular and/or intended purpose by their actions andlor inactions pertaining to the Scooters; f. Whether Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability by their actions and/or inactions pertaining to the Scooters; g. Whether Scooter Defendants? littering of the Scooters throughout the State of California and/or deployment of the Scooters constitutes a public nuisance; and h. Whether declaratory andfor injunctive relief is appropriate, as discussed below. 33. Furthermore, such common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the subclasses. 34. The claims of the Plaintiffs herein, with regard to the respective subclasses of which they are proposed to be class representatives, are typical of the claims of their respective subclasses, all of whom have sustained, will sustain and/or are endangered of sustaining injuries andlor damages, including inoperable harm, as a proximate and legal result of the common - 10 . COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 I'll!? - Fm" mm COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation pmposed that they will act as class representatives, will fairly and adequately protect the course of conduct, acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein. 35. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the subclasses for which interests of all members of their respective subclasses, in connection with which they have retained attorneys experienced in the prosecution of multi-party andfor class action cases. The named Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of their respective subclasses because it is in their best interest to prosecute the claims herein alleged to obtain full compensation due to them for violations of California law and the causes of action alleged herein. 36. Under the facts and circumstances set forth herein, class action proceedings are superior to any other methods available for both fair and ef?cient adjudication of the rights of each of the class members who have sustained, will sustain and/or are endangered of sustaining injuries and/or damages as a result of Defendants? actions, acts, failures to act and/or omissions arising out of or relating to the deployment of the Scooters, as alleged herein. Inasmuch as joinder of individual members of each of the subclasses is not practical, said subclass members could not individually afford the litigation, such that individual litigation would be overly burdensome, not only to said individuals, but also to the courts of the State of California. 37. To process individual cases would increase both the expenses and the delay not only to each of the members of the subclasses alleged herein, but also to Bird, Lime, Xiaomi, Segway, the State of California and the Court. In contrast, a class action will avoid dif?culties related to case management and will provide multiple bene?ts to the litigating parties, including, but not limited to, ef?ciency, economy of scale, unitary adjudication with consistent results and equal protection of the rights of each of the members of the subclasses alleged herein, all by way of the comprehensive and ef?cient supervision of the litigation by a single court. 38. Notice of the pendency and any result and/or resolution of the litigation can be provided to subclass members by the usual forms of publication or such other methods as -11- COMPLAINT Santa Monica, Califomia 90401-1007 T's-1* (1 I a For 442.76?! COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue Sulte 450 approved by the Court. 39. Plaintiffs are not aware of any dif?culties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude their maintenance as a class action. ALLEGMIOS COMMON TO. ALL 40. Bird and Lime operate businesses in California, including, but not limited to, within Los Angeles County, that deploy electric, motorized Scooters (manufactured by the Manufacturing Defendants) to the general public. The Scooters have no seats, foot pedals or adequate safety features. Helmets are not offered for rent along with the Scooters. The Scooters are operated by rotating the handlebars to steer the Scooter?s front wheel. The handlebars also have a brake handle and a handle mechanism that activates an electric motor to propel the Scooters forward (also known as an accelerator) to speeds up to approximately 15 Ii miles per hour. 41. Plaintiffs and the members of the subclasses alleged herein, and each of them, have been, will be and/or are endangered of being injured and/or damaged as a result of the actions, acts, omissions, failures to act and/or inactions of the Defendants, and each of them, arising out of or relating to the deployment of the Scooters, as alleged herein. 42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Bird, Lime, Xiaomi and Segway, and each of them, have deployed thousands of Scooters throughout the State of California and many more throughout the United States. ii 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that there are no permanent or particular locations where the Scooters are to be dropped off by the riders or where they are to be picked up by Bird or Lime after the rider ends his or her ride. Riders are encouraged to leave, and do, in fact, as a practical matter, leave the Scooters virtually anywhere on public property (and sometimes on and/or access to private property (including, but not limited to, on or in front of stores, shops and businesses and in their parking lots or areas?. Both Bird and Lime promote, market and advertise the ?exibility that their respective riders have in where they can leave their Scooters, as a selling point. And, both Bird and Lime knew, - 12 .. ll COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 9040l-1007 Tn? fill? - Far mm COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation know and/or should have known that their respective riders do not and/or will not follow any guidelines or rules that may have been or may in the ?rture be provided by Bird or Lime with regard to where the Scooters should be left; where, how and at what maximum speeds they should be ridden; and/or with regard to riding the Scooters only while wearing a safety helmet. Moreover, Bird and Lime will not enforce or ensure compliance with, and, as a practical matter, are currently incapable of enforcing or ensuring compliance with, any such guidelines or rules. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, were aware of these facts as well and, in light of this knowledge, continued to sell and/or provide the Scooters to the Scooter Defendants, and each of them. 44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that all the Scooters were manufactured after 1969 and do not meet manufacturer or importer certi?cation label requirements as speci?ed in 49 C.F.R 567 et seq. and are not Kei class vehicles. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Products Liability All Plaintiffs against Scooter Defendants and Does 1-50) 45. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 46. Bird Rider Representative and Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1?25. 47. Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestriaanublic Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime and Does 26-50. 48. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the class members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, were proximately caused personal injury, damage and harm as a proximate result of the deployment of the Scooters by the Scooter Defendants, and each of them. - 13 - comm 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica. California 90401-1007 COSTELL CORN ELIUS Law Corporation Tpl- rum unseen . F's-1? nim ?2-70m 49. The Scooters deployed by the Scooter Defendants, and each of them, are unsafe for the use and purpose for which the Scooter Defendants are putting them into the stream of commerce, contain manufacturing and/or design defects, andfor do not include adequate instructions and/or warnings of potential safety hazards. 50. Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooters, among other things, contain defective electronics, brakes, battery charge indicators, wheels and tires, internal power tubes and accelerators, and do not contain adequate insu'uctions andfor warnings of hazards and dangers. 51. In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: Scooter Defendants, and each of them, distributed the Scooters; (2) the Scooters contained manufacturing defects when they left the possession of Scooter Defendants, and each of them, and were placed in the stream of commerce; (3) Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and their respective subclasses, and each of them, were harmed; and (4) the Scooters? defects were a substantial factor in causing the aforementioned harm. 52. In addition andfor in the alternative, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: Scooter Defendants, and each of them, distributed and/or manufactured the Scooters; (2) the Scooters did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner; (3) Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and their respective subclasses, and each of them, were harmed; and (4) the Scooters? failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing the aforementioned harm. 53. In addition andfor in the alternative, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: the gravity of the potential harm resulting from the use of the Scooters outweighs any social utility; (2) the likelihood that this harm would occur was great; (3) there was an alternative (safer) design at - 14 - comm Santa Monica, California 9040i-1007 I (11th COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation l299 Ocean Avenue Suite 450 hthe time of manufacture; (4) there was only a nominal, if any, additional cost in using an alternative (safer) design; and (5) the alternative design did not have any disadvantages. 54. In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: (1) Scooter Defendants, and each of them, distributed andlor manufactured the Scooters; (2) the Scooters had potential risks that were known andfor knowable in light of the professional knowledge that was generally accepted in the transportation community at the time of manufacture and/or 3 distribution; (3) the potential risks presented a substantial danger when the Scooters are used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; (4) an ordinary consumer would not have recognized the potential risks of the Scooters; (5) Scooter Defendants, and each of them, failed to adequately warn andfor instruct of the potential risks; (6) Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and their respective subclasses, and each of them, were banned; and (7) the lack of suf?cient instructions and/or warnings was a substantial factor in causing the aforementioned harm. 55. As a proximate and direct result of the above, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other ldamages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. 56. The aforementioned conduct, acts, omissions and failures to act of Scooter Defendants, and each of them, was ?audulent, malicious, outrageous and/or oppressive and/or, in connection with the same, the Scooter Defendants, and each of them, acted or failed to act in conscious disregard of the safety and rights of Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives, Lime lRepresentatives, and the class members of the various subclasses, and each of them, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 3294 in an unascertained amount, according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum. - 15 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tpl- (110's AQRJZOSO - an- ?lth COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Products Liability All Plaintiffs against Manufacturing Defendants and Does 51-100) 57. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 56, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 58. Bird Rider Representative and Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Xiaomi, Segway and Does 51-75. 59. Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Segway and Does 76-100. 60. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the class members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, were proximately caused personal injury, damage and harm as a proximate result of the deployment of the Scooters by the Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them. 61. The Scooters deployed by the Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, are unsafe for the use and purpose for which the Manufacturing Defendants are putting them into the stream of commerce, contain manufacturing and/or design defects, and/or do not include adequate instructions andlor warnings of potential safety hazards. 62. Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooters, among other things, contain defective electronics, brakes, battery charge indicators, wheels and tires, internal power tubes and accelerators, and do not contain adequate instructions and/or warnings of hazards and dangers. 63. In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: (1) Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, manufactured the Scooters; (2) the Scooters contained -15- COMPLAINT COSTELL 8r. CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue. Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 rum AQRACNO . raw- mm Mam-no manufacturing defects when they le? the possession of Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, and were placed in the stream of commerce; (3) Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and their respective subclasses, and each of them, were banned; and (4) ii the Scooters? defects were a substantial factor in causing the aforementioned harm. 64. In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: (1) Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, distributed and/or manufactured the Scooters; (2) the Scooters did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner; (3) Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and their respective subclasses, and each of them, were harmed; and (4) the Scooters? failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing ii the aforementioned harm. 65. In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: the gravity of the potential harm resulting from the use of the Scooters outweighs any social utility; (2) the 'l likelihood that this hann would occur was great; (3) there was an alternative (safer) design at the time of manufacture; (4) there was only a nominal, if any, additional cost in using an alternative (safer) design; and (5) the alternative design did not have any disadvantages. 66. In addition and/or in the alternative, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: Defendants, and each of them, distributed and/or manufactured the Scooters; (2) the Scooters had potential risks that were known and/or knowable in light of the professional knowledge that was generally accepted in the transportation community at the time of manufacture and/or distribution; (3) the potential risks presented a substantial danger when the Scooters are used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; (4) an ordinary consumer would not have recognized the potential risks of the Scooters; (5) Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, failed to adequately warn and/or instruct of the potential risks; (6) Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and - 17 - COMPLAINT mt?ar?Iu?tp?uu?a MAWNWO 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Pmr- (11m COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation H?l y?I I?l 00 y?n Lime Representatives, and their respective subclasses, and each of them, were harmed; and (7) the lack of suf?cient instructions and/or warnings was a substantial factor in causing the aforementioned harm. 67. As a proximate and direct result of the above, Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. 68. The aforementioned conduct, acts, omissions and failures to act of Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, was fraudulent, malicious, outrageous and/or oppressive and/or, in connection with the same, the Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, acted or failed to act in conscious disregard of the safety and rights of Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives, Lime Representatives, and the class members of the various subclasses, and each of them, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 3294 in an unascertained amount, according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence All Plaintiffs against Scooter Defendants and Does 1-50) 69. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 70. Bird Rider Representative and Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1-25. 71. Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime and Does 26-50. - 13 - COMPLAINT Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 T01- - Fav- (11th COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue Suite 450 72. Scooter Defendants, and each of them, as commercial operators who deploy Scooters to the general public, owed and continue to owe the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, a duty of due care to ensure that the Scooters were safe, that they were not and would not be defective or unsafe for their intended use and purpose, and that they would not be used or operated in an unsafe or dangerous manner. 73. By virtue of the foregoing, Scooter Defendants, and each of them, breached this duty. 74. As a proximate and direct result of the above, the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence -- All Plaintiffs against Manufacturing Defendants and Does 51-100) 75. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 74, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 76. Bird Rider Representative and Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Xiaomi, Segway and Does 50-75. 77. Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Segway and Does 76-100. 78. Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, as the manufacturers of the Scooters, owed and continue to owe the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime -19- COMPLAINT Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tpl- I?ll!? It?ll-?40?) - 179v- COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue Suite 450 Representatives, and the members of their resPective subclasses, and each of them, a duty of due care to ensure that the Scooters were safe, that they were not and would not be defective or unsafe for their intended use and purpose, and that they would not be used or operated in an unsafe or dangerous manner. 79. By virtue of the foregoing, Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, breached this duty. 80. As a proximate and direct result of the above, the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence Per Se AB Plaintiffs against Scooter Defendants and Does 1-50) 81. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 80, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 82. Bird Rider Representative and Bird Pedestriaanublic Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1-25. 83. Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their reapective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime and Does 26-50. 84. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Scooter Defendants, and each of them, negligently and/or intentionally violated, encouraged and/or aided and abetted the violation of various federal, state and/or local statutes, rules, laws andfor regulations (collectively, ?Statutes,? - 20 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica. California 90401?1007 Tai- (110} 0 Few- rum ASRJIQRO COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation including, but not limited to, those set forth below (collectively, ?Statutory Violations?), and, therefore are liable to the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, for negligence per se. 85. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Scooter Defendants, and each of them, negligently and/or intentionally committed and/or assisted in the commission of the following Statutory Violations, among others: 49 CPR 567, et seq., and California Vehicle Code sections 21224, 21228, 21229, 21230 and 21235 and various other federal, state, municipal, county and other local Statutory Violations relating to, among other things, traf?c and vehicle use. 86. The Statutory Violations of the Scooter Defendants, and each of them, have proximately caused Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, injuries andfor damages. 87. The injuries and/or damages suffered and to he suffered by the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, resulted from the kind of occurrences and are within the scope of the harm that said Statutes, and each of them, were designed, in whole or in part, to prevent. 88. The Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their reSpective subclasses, and each of them, were and are members of the class of persons that said Statutes were intended to protect. 89. As a proximate and direct result of the above, Plainti?s, the Bird Representatives and the Limo Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertaincd amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. HI Ill -21- COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 904014007 T'pl- (1.11? - Fuv- r? COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corpomtion SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence Per Se All Plaintiffs against Manufacturing Defendants and Does 50-100) 90. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 89, above, as though ?illy set forth at length herein. 91. Rider Plaintiff, Bird Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Rider Representative and Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Xiaomi, Segway and Does 50-75. 92. Rider Plaintiff, Lime Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their reSpective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Segway and Does 76-100. 93. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, negligently andlor intentionally violated, encouraged and/or aided and abetted the violation of various Statutes and, therefore are liable to the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, for negligence per se. 94. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, negligently and/or intentionally committed and/or assisted in the commission of the following Statutory Violations, among others: 49 CPR 567, et seq., and California Vehicle Code sections 21224, 21228, 21229, 21230 and 21235 and various other federal, state, municipal, county and other local Statutory Violations relating to, among other things, traf?c and vehicle use. 95. The Statutory Violations of the Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, have proximately caused Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, injuries and/or damages. - 22 .. COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tal- Fm" rum I?m-704?! COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corpomtion 96. The injuries and/or damages suffered and to be suffered by the Plainti??s, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, resulted from the kind of occurrences and are within the scope of the harm that said Statutes, and each of them, were designed, in Whole or in part, to prevent. 97. The Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, were and are members of the class of persons that said Statutes were intended to protect. 98. As a proximate and direct result of the above, Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Gross Negligence - All Plaintiffs against Scooter Defendants and Does 1-50) 99. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 98, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 100. Bird Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Rider Representative and Bird PedestrianJPublic Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1-25. 101. Lime Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Lime Rider Representative and Lirne Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime and Does 26-50. 102. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Scooter Defendants, and each of them, were grossly negligent with regard to the acts and omissions as alleged herein and the same: (1) constitute a .. 23 - COWLAINT 1299 Gecnn Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica. Califomia 90401-100? Tnl- (1101 - Fav- (111? COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1 L. want of even scant care and/or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct and/or ordinary care; and/or (2) demonstrate a wanton disregard for the safety of others. 103. As a proximate and direct result of the above, the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggegate. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTEON (Gross Negligence - All Plaintiffs against Manufacturing Defendants and Does 51-100) 104. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re?allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 103, above, as though ?illy set forth at length herein. 105. Rider Plaintiff, Bird Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Rider Representative and Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Xiaomi, Segway and Does 51-75. 106. Rider Plaintiff, Lime Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Segway and Does 76-100. 107. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, were grossly negligent with regard to the acts and omissions as alleged herein and the same: (1) constitute a want of even scant care and/or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct andfor ordinary care; and/or (2) demonstrate a wanton disregard for the safety of others. 108. As a proximate and direct result of the above, the Plaintiffs, Bird Representatives and Lime Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and - 24 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 a Tiny- rum (192.70?! COSTELL CORNELIUS law Corporation each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular and/or Intended Purpose - Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Lime Rider Representative, Bird Rider Subclass, and Lime Rider Subclass against Scooter Defendants and Does 1?59) 109. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative re?allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 108, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 110. Rider Plaintiff and Bird Rider Representative, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1-25. 111. Rider Plaintiff and Lime Rider Representative, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime and Does 26-50. 112. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Lime Rider Representative, the Bird Rider Subclass and Lime Rider Subclass, and each of them, rented and/or used a consumer good, the Scooters, deployed by Scooter Defendants, and each of them. 113. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and each of them, are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Scooter Defendants, and each of them, at all times relevant herein, knew and/or had reason to know that the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, intended to use the Scooters for the particular purposes alleged above, including, but limited to, as a reasonably safe means of transportation. 114. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and each of them, are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Scooter Defendants, 25 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 T?l' . 11"? AQRJIQQO COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation and each of them, at all times, knew and/or should have known that the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, were relying on the skill and judgment of the Scooter Defendants, and each of them, to provide a scooter that was suitable for that particular purpose. 115. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Lime Rider Representative and their respective subclasses, and each of them, justi?ably relied on the skill and judgment of the Scooter Defendants, and each of them, as they held themselves out as experienced providers of Scooters and means of transportation, generally, and safe and reliable Scooters and means of transportation, speci?cally. 116. By virtue of the foregoing and because, among other things, the Scooters were not intended for use or repeated use in or on Public Places, the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and each of them, are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooters were not suitable for said intended and/or particular purposes. 117. As a proximate and direct result of the above, the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular andfor Intended Purpose - Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Lime Rider Representative, Bird Rider Subclass, and Lime Rider Subciass against Manufacturing Defendants and Does 51-100) 118. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative reallege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in -25- COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 1391- - Fan" COSTELL ?6 CORNELIUS Law Corporation paragraphs 1 through 117, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 119. Rider Plaintiff and Bird Rider Representative, on behalf of themselves and their re5pective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Xiaomi, Segway and Does 51-75. 120. Rider Plaintiff and Lime Rider Representative, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Segway and Does 76-100. 121. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Lime Rider Representative, the Bird Rider Subclass and Lime Rider Subclass, and each of them, rented and/or used a consumer good, the Scooters, manufactured by Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them. 122. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and each of them, are. informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, at all times relevant herein, knew andfor had reason to know that the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, intended to use the Scooters for the particular purposes alleged above, including, but limited to, as a reasonably safe means of transportation. 123. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and each of them, are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, at all times, knew and/or should have known that the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, were relying on the skill and judgment of the Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, to provide a scooter that was suitable for that particular purpose. 124. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Lime Rider Representative and their respective subclasses, and each of them, justi?ably relied on the skill and judgment of the Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, as they held themselves out as experienced providers of Scooters and means of transportation, generally, and safe and reliable Scooters and means of transportation, speci?cally. -27- COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 {1 If? 4451.50?! 0 For (MESH-K0 COSTELL 8c CORNELIUS Law Corporation125. By virtue of the foregoing and because, among other things, the Scooters were not intended for use or repeated use in or on Public Places, the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and each of them, are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooters were not suitable for said intended and/or particular purposes. 126. As a proximate and direct result of the above, the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate USE OF ACTION (Breach of implied Warranty of Merchantahility Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Lime Rider Representative, Bird Rider Subclass, and Lime Rider Subclass against Scooter Defendants and Does 1-50) 127. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 126, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 128. Rider Plaintiff and Bird Rider Representative, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1-25. 129. Rider Plaintiff and Lime Rider Representative, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime and Does 26-50. 130. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, rented and/or used a consumer good, the Scooters, deployed by Scooter Defendants, and each of them. 131. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Scooter Defendants, and each of them, - 28 - COMPLAINT I Santa Monies. California 90401-1007 T'pl- rum 442-com . new" rum ?2-10:0 COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue Sutte 450 all times relevant herein, were in the business of deploying andlor renting Scooters to the general public. 132. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooters were not of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the trade and/or were not ?t for the ordinary purposes for which the Scooters are used, as alleged herein. 133. As a proximate and direct result of the above, Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of implied Warranty of Merchantability Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Lime Rider Representative, Bird Rider Subclass, and Lime Rider Subclass against Manufacturing Defendants and Does 51-100) 134. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 133, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 135. Rider Plaintiff and Bird Rider Representative, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Xiaomi, Segway and Does 51-75. 136. Rider Plaintiff and Lime Rider Representative, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Segway and Does 76-100. 137. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, rented and/or used a consumer good, the Scooters, manufactured by Manufacnuing Defendants, and each of them. 138. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative .29- comm 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tpl- For COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, at all times relevant herein, were in the business of manufacturing Scooters that they knew would be used by the public. 139. The Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooters were not of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the trade andfor were not ?t for the ordinary purposes for which the Scooters are used, as alleged herein. 140. As a proximate and direct result of the above, Rider Plainti??, Bird Rider Representative and Lime Rider Representative, and members of their reSpective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, Special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTIGN (Public Nuisance - Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestriaanublic Representatives, Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subclass, and Lime Pedestrian Subclass against Scooter Defendants and Does 1?50) 141. The Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/?Public Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 140, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 142. Bird Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs and Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1-25. 143. Lime Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime and D068 26-50. -30- COMPLAINT Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tnl- {?Ilf? 452.50?: - Far 11"? ?32.70?) COSTELL 8r. CORNELIUS Law Corpomtion 1299 Ocean Avenue Suite 450 @00quan 144. Scooter Defendants, and each of them, owe a non-delegable duty to the public, including, but not limited to, the Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Pedesniaanublic Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subclass and Lime Pedestrian Subclass, and each of them, to conduct their business, in general, and, in particular, to conduct deployment of the Scooters, in a manner that did not threaten harm or injury to the public health, safety and welfare. 145. The Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Scooter Defendants, and each of them, by their actions and/or inactions, including, but not limited to, littering the sidewalks, public parks, squares, streets and/or highway of California with Scooters and encouraging individuals to ride the Scooters within the sidewalks, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways of California, created a condition that: was and continues to be harmful to the general health, safety and/or well-being of the public; (2) unlawfully obstructed and continues to obstruct, restrict and/or hamper the free access to, passage through and/or use of, in the customary andfor rightful manner, of Public Places (and/or the entry into private places or preperty, ?our and through Public Places), as alleged herein; and (3) by virtue of such restricted or limited access and due to the defective batteries of the Scooters, is, was and continues to be a ?re hazard. Further, Scooter Defendants have aided and abetted assaults through their actions, as discussed herein below and incorporated herein by this reference. 146. The aforementioned conditions affected and continue to affect a substantial number of people at the same time, including, but not limited to, the Pedestriam?Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subclass and Lime Pedestrian Subclass. 147. Any ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed and/or disturbed by the aforementioned conditions. 148. The seriousness of the harm pertaining to the aforementioned conditions - 31 - COMPLAINT Santa Monica, California 90401?1007 Tpl- fill? . Far (1 I COSTELL 85 CORNELIUS Lew Corporation [299 Ocean Avenue Suite 450 outweighs the social utility of the conduct of the Scooter Defendants, and each of them. 149. The Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subclass and Lime Pedestrian Subclass did not consent to Scooter Defendants? conduct, acts and omissions. 150. The conduct of Scooter Defendants, and each of them, was a substantial factor in proximately causing harm to the Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subclass and Lime Pedestrian Subclass. 151. The unreasonable conduct of Scooter Defendants, and each of them, is a direct and legal cause of the harm, injury andlor damage to the public, including the Pedestriaanublic Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestzian/Public Representatives, Lime Pedestrian/?Public Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subclass and Lime Pedestrian Subclass. 152. The conduct of Scooter Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above constitutes a public nuisance within the meaning of California Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480, and Code of Civil Procedure section 731. Under Civil Code section 3493, the Pedestn'an/Public Plainti??s, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives have standing to maintain an action for public nuisance because, among o?-ier things, the Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Pedestriaanublic Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subclass and Lime Pedestrian Subclass suffered harm that was different from the type of harm suffered by the general public, including, but not limited to, being struck by one of the Scooters and/or nipping over the Scooters which have been dumped throughout the State of California. 153. As a proximate and direct result of the above, the Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subclass and Lime Pedestrian Subclass, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s - 32 . COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica. California 90401-1007 Tnl- ?32.40?! 0 Far COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. 154. Further, the Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives seek a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent ll . . . . injunctlon ordenng that Scooter Defendants abate the existing and continuing nuisance described above. OURTEEN CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief/Injunctive Relief against all Defendants All Haintiffs against Scooter Defendants Does 1-50) 155. Plaintiffs, the Bird Representatives and the Lime Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 154, above, as though fully set forth at length herein. 156. Bird Rider Representative and Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1-25. 157. Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their reapective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime and Does 26-50 158. By virtue of the foregoingan actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, on the one hand, and Scooter Defendants, and each of them, on the other hand, in that, among other things, the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, contend, among other things and in essence, that (collectively, the ?Deployment Contentions?): a. Bird?s deployment of the Scooters it uses is unlaw?il; and b. Lime?s deployment of the Scooters it uses is unlawful; . 33 - 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica. California 90401-1007 T?l? I?ll!? - Fawn {11m CORNELIUS Law Corporation 159. Upon information and belief, Scooter Defendants, and each of them, deny and dispute the Deployment Contentions set forth hereinabove and a judicial determination as to the foregoing matters is necessary and appropriate at this time, under the circumstances, so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties in order to avoid con?icting claims relating to the foregoing matters. 160. By virtue of the foregoing and the matters set forth in this Complaint, the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Bird PedestrianiPublic Representatives, Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, require and are entitled to a full and complete judicial declaration as to the relative rights and duties of the parties with reSpect to the Deployment Contentions. 161. In addition and/or in the alternative, by virtue of the foregoing and the matters set forth in this Complaint, and because the Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestriaanublic Representatives? remedies at law are inadequate, Rider Plaintiff, Bird Rider Representative, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Lime Rider Representative and Lime Pedestrian/Butane Representatives require and are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, a Court order or decree: a. Enjoining, restraining and prohibiting Bird and its respective agents, employees, attorneys and/or other representatives, and all persons acting in concert with or on the instructions of any of them, from continuing to deploy Scooters in the State of California; 13. Enjoining, restraining and prohibiting Lime and its respective agents, employees, attorneys and/or other representatives, and all persons acting in concert with or on the instructions of any of them, from continuing to deploy Scooters in the State of California; c. Requiring Scooter Defendants to af?x adequate warnings and/or instructions to their Scooters; - 34 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tole fill? - Far (1.11? 452.701?) COSTELL 35 CORNELIUS 13w Corporation (Aiding and Abetting Assaults Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public d. Requiring Scooter Defendants to include adequate warnings and/or instructions about their Scooters in their respective Apps; e. Requiring Scooter Defendants to include adequate warnings and/or instructions in their advertisement and/or marketing; and f. For such other and ?lrther injunctive relief as the Court deems just and proper. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Representatives, Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, Bird Pedestrian Subciass, and Lime Pedestrian Subclass against Scooter Defendants and Does 1-50) 162. The Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and I Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives re-allege and incorporate herein by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 161, above, as set forth at length herein. 163. Bird Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs and Bird Pedestrianfl?ublic Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Bird and Does 1-25. 164. Lime Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, bring this cause of action against Lime 1 and Does 26-50. 165. The Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooter Defendants, and each of them knew that assaults were and/or currently are being committed by Scooter riders against the Pedestriaanublic Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestriaanublic Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, and members of their respective subclasses. 166. The Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and - 35 COMPLAINT Santa Monica, California 9040l?1007 Tnl- {110} - an- 1'11 f? ?52.79?! COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue Suite 450 Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooter Defendants gave substantial assistance and/or encouragement to the Scooter riders. 167. The Pedestriaanublic Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the Scooter Defendants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses. 168. As a proximate and direct result of the above, the Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestriaanublic Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, and the members of their respective subclasses, and each of them, have suffered and incurred general, special, compensatory, consequential, incidental and other damages, in an unascertained amount according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum, both individually and collectively, in the aggregate. 169. The aforementioned conduct, acts, omissions and failures to act of Scooter Defendants, and each of them, was fraudulent, malicious, outrageous and/or oppressive andlor, in connection with the same, the Scooter Defendants, and each of them, acted or failed to act in conscious disregard of the safety and rights of the Pedestrian/Public Plaintiffs, Bird Pedestrian/Public Representatives and Lime Pedestrian/Public Representatives, and the members of the various subclasses, and each of them, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 3294 in an unascertained amount, according to proof, but in any event in excess of this Court?s jurisdictional minimum Hi .. 36 - COMPLAINT 1299 Ocean Avenue. Suite 450 Santa Monica, Califcmia 90401-1007 452.310?) 9 For COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation PRAYER On the First Cause of Action: 1. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the Court; On the Second Cause of Action: 3. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 4. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the Court; On the Third Cause of Action: 5. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; On the Fourth Cause of Action: 6. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential andfor special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 0n the Fifth Cause of Action: 7. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 0n the Sixth Cause of Action: 8. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 0n the Seventh Cause of Action: 9. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; -37- COMPLAINT 0n the Eighth Cause of Action: 10. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 011 the Ninth Cause of Action: 11. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; On the Tenth Cause of Action: 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 mm 0 Fan- (11m COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 12. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; On the Eleventh Cause of Action: 13. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential anti/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; On the Twelfth Cause of Action: 14. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 0n the Thirteenth Cause of Action: 15. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential and/or special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 16. For injunctive relief as discussed in the Thirteenth Cause of Action; On the Fourteenth Cause of Action: 17. For declaratory and injunctive relief as discussed in the Fourteenth Cause of Action; 011 the Fifteenth Cause of Action: 18. For general, compensatory, incidental, consequential andjor special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 19. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the Court; -33- COMPLAINT On All Causes of Action: 20. For interest at the maximum legal rate allowed; and 21. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. DEMANB FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their respective subclasses, hereby demand a trial by jury. 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica. California 90401-1007 COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation TnfDATED: October L3, 2018 COSTELL CORNELIUS LAW CORPORATION DATED: October 2018 Jeffrey Lee Costell LERER ASSOCIATES a ?51; em Catherine Lerer -39- COMPLAINT Superior Court of California County of Los Angeics Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Section Los Angeles County Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles Southern California Defense Counsel 1m'nm'rs I'ii ?4513?? hu Association of Business Trial Lawyers 'ermemw California Employment Lawyers Association LACIV 230 (NEW) LASC Approved 4?1 1 For Optional Use VOLUNTARY EFFECEENT The Early Organizational Meeting Stipulation, Discovery Resolution Stipulation, and Motions in Limine Stipulation are voluntary stipulations entered into by the parties. The parties may enter into one, two, or all three of the stipulations; however, they may not alter the stipulations as written, because the Court wants to ensure uniformity of application. These stipulations are meant to encourage cooperation between the parties and to assist in resolving issues in a manner that promotes economic case resolution and judicial efficiency. The following organizations endorse the goal of promoting ef?ciency in litigation and ask that counsel consider using these stipulations as a voluntary way to promote communications and procedures among counsel and with the court to fairly resolve issues in their cases. @Los Angeles County Bar Association Litigation Sectionsr Los Angeies County Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Sections @00nsumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles% eSouthern California Defense Counsel Association of Business Trial Lawyers California Employment Lawyers Association NAME AND ADDRESS OF ATIORNEV 0R PARTY Wl ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NUMBER TELEPHONE NO: FAX NO. (Optional): EMAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Reserved for Clerk's Fi- Stung SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNEA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COURTHOUSE ADDRESS: PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: .. EARLY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING CASE NUMBER: This stipulation is intended to encourage cooperation among the parties at an early stage in the litigation and to assist the parties in ef?cient case resolution. The parties agree that: 1. The parties commit to conduct an initial conference (in-person or via teleconference or via videoconference) within 15 days from the date this stipulation is signed, to discuss and consider whether there can be agreement on the following: a. Are motions to challenge the pleadings necessary? If the issue can be resolved by amendment as of right. or if the Court would allow leave to amend, could an amended complaint resolve most or all of the issues a demurrer might otherwise raise? If so, the parties agree to work through pleading issues so that a demurrer need only raise issues they cannot resolve. is the issue that the defendant seeks to raise amenable to resolution on demurrer, or would some other type of motion be preferable? Could a voluntary targeted exchange of documents or information by any party cure an uncertainty in the pleadings? Initial mutual exchanges of documents at the ?core" of the litigation. (For example, in an employment case, the employment records, personnel ?le and documents relating to the conduct in question could be considered ?core.? in a personal injury case. an incident or police report. medical records. and repair or maintenance records could be considered Exchange of names and contact information of witnesses; Any insurance agreement that may be available to satisfy part or all of a judgment. or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment; Exchange of any other information that might be helpful to facilitate understanding. handling, or resolution of the case in a manner that preserves objections or privileges by agreement; Controlling issues of law that. if resolved early. will promote ef?ciency and economy in other phases of the case. Also. when and how such issues can be presented to the Court; Whether or when the case should be scheduled with a settlement of?cer. what discovery or court ruling on legal issues is reasonably required to make settlement discussions meaningful, and whether the parties wish to use a sitting judge or a private mediator or other options as 229 Rev 02115 ?gment: 04m) sneu LATION EARLY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING For Optional Use Page 1 of 2 SHORT TITLE, CASE NUMBER: discussed in the ?Alternative DiSpute Resolution (ADR) Information Package? served with the complaint; Computation of damages, including documents. not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based; Whether the case is suitable for the Expedited Jury Trial procedures (see information at under ?Civif' and then under ?Genera! Information"). The time for a defending party to respond to a complaint or cross-complaint will be extended to for the complaint, and for the cross- (INSERT DATE) complaint, which is comprised of the 30 days to respond under Government Code 68616(b), and the 30 days permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 1054(a), good cause having been found by the Civil Supervising Judge due to the case management bene?ts provided by this Stipulation. A copy of the General Order can be found at under ?Civif?, click on "General Information?. then click on "Voluntary Ef?cient Litigation Stipulations". The parties will prepare a joint report titled ?Joint Status Report Pursuant to initial Conference and Early Organizational Meeting Stipulation, and if desired. a proposed order summarizing results of their meat and confer and advising the Court of any way it may assist the parties? ef?cient conduct or resolution of the case. The parties shall attach the Joint Status Report to the Case Management Conference statement, and ?le the documents when the CMC statement is due. References to "days? mean calendar days, unless otherwise noted. If the date for performing any act pursuant to this stipulation falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Court holiday, then the time for performing that act shall be extended to the next Court day The following parties stipulate: Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF) Date: PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: (TYPE OR NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR I Date: 3; (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR I Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FDR I EARLY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING page 2 0,2 NAME AND ADDRESS OF OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER Rm for Gian?: Fin Sump TELEPHONE no: FAX no. (Optional): E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COURTHOUSE ADDRESS: DEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER: STIPULATION - DESCOVERY RESOLUTEON This stipulation is intended to provide a fast and informal resolution of discovery issues through limited paperwork and an informal conference with the Court to aid in the resolution of the issues. The parties agree that: 1. Prior to the discovery cut-off in this action. no discovery motion shall be ?led or heard unless the moving party first makes a written request for an Informal Discovery Conference pursuant to the terms of this stipulation. 2. At the Informal Discovery Conference the Court will consider the dispute presented by parties and determine whether it can be resolved informally. Nothing set forth herein will preclude a party from making a record at the conclusion of an informal Discovery Conference, either orally or in writing. 3. Following a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue to be presented, a party may request an Informal Discovery Conference pursuant to the following procedures: a. The party requesting the Informal Discovery Conference will: i. File a Request for Informal Discovery Conference with the clerk's of?ce on the approved form (copy attached) and deliver a courtesy, conformed copy to the assigned department; ii. Include a brief summary of the dispute and specify the relief requested; and Serve the opposing party pursuant to any authorized or agreed method of service that ensures that the opposing party receives the Request for informal Discovery Conference no later than the next court day following the ?ling. b. Any Answer to a Request for Informal Discovery Conference must: i. Also be ?led on the approved form (copy attached); ii. Include a brief summary of why the requested relief should be denied; LACIV 036 (new) LASC Approved 04m STIPULATION - DISCOVERY RESOLUTION For Optional Use Page 1 of 3 SHORT CASE Be ?led within two (2) court days of receipt of the Request; and iv. Be served on the opposing party pursuant to any authorized or agreed upon method of service that ensures that the opposing party receives the Answer no later than the next court day following the ?ling. c. No other pleadings, including but not limited to exhibits, declarations, or attachments, will be accepted. d. If the Court has not granted or denied the Request for lnfonnal Discovery Conference within ten (10) days following the ?ling of the Request, then it shall be deemed to have been denied. If the Court acts on the Request, the parties will be notified whether the Request for Informal Discovery Conference has been granted or denied and, if granted, the date and time of the Informal Discovery Conference, which must be within twenty (20) days of the ?ling of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference. e. If the conference is not held within twenty (20) days of the ?ling of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference, unless extended by agreement of the parties and the Court, then the Request for the Informal Discovery Conference shall be deemed to have been denied at that time. 4. If the Court has denied a conference or one of the time deadlines above has expired without the Court having acted or the Informal Discovery Conference is concluded without resolving the dispute, then a party may ?le a discovery motion to address unresolved issues. 5. The parties hereby further agree that the time for making a motion to compel or other discovery motion is toiled from the date of ?ling of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference until the request is denied or deemed denied or twenty (20) days after the ?ling of the Request for Informal Discovery Conference, whichever is earlier, unless extended by Order of the Court. It is the understanding and intent of the parties that this stipulation shall. for each discovery dispute to which it applies, constitute a writing memorializing a "speci?c later date to which the propounding [or demanding or requesting] party and the responding party have agreed in writing,? within the meaning of Code Civil Procedure sections and 6. Nothing herein will preclude any party from applying ex parts for appropriate relief, including an order shortening time for a motion to be heard concerning discovery. 7. Any party may terminate this stipulation by giving twenty-one (21) days notice of intent to terminate the stipulation. 8. References to ?days" mean calendar days, unless otherwise noted. If the date for performing any act pursuant to this stipulation falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Court holiday, then the time for performing that act shall be extended to the next Court day. LACIV 036 (new) LASC Approved 04:11 STIPULATION RESOLUTION For Optional Use Page 2 of 3 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: The following parties stipu?ate: Date: ?9 (TYPE 05 PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR Date: (TYPE on PRINT NAME) (ATTORWFOR DEFENDANT) Date: )3 (TYPE on PRINT (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR 1 Date: *2 (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR Date: (TYPE DR PRINT NAME) (ATTORNEY FOR ?gfifr??i??mm STIPULATION DISCOVERY RESOLUTION Far Optional Use Page 3 of 3 NAME AND ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY OR PARTY ATTORNEY- TELEPHONE no; ADDRESS (Optional): FOR (Name): STATE BAR NUMBER FAX NO. (Optional): SUPERIOR CQURT OF CALIFORNEA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Reserved for 0612'- Flo Surat! ?mmouse ADDRESS: PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE {pursuant to the Discovery Resolution Stipulation of the parties) . This document relates to: El Request for informal Discovery Conference Answer to Request for informal Discovery Conference . Deadline for Court to decide on Request: the Request). . Deadline for Court to hold Informal Discovery Conference: (insert date 20 mlendar days following ?ling of the Request). For a Request for informal Discovery Conference, briefly describe the nature of the discovery dispute, including the facts and legal arguments at issue. For an Answer to Request for informal Discovery Conference, briefly describe why the Court should deny the requested discovery, including the facts and legal arguments at issue. (insert date 10 calendar days following ?ling of ENFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (pursuant to the Discovery Resolution Stipulation of the parties} LASC Approved 04111 For Optional Use NAME AND ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHQUT ATTORNEY TELEPHONE Nil: E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): STATE MRNUMHER FAX NO. (Optional): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF L03 ANGELES cou?ruouse ADDRESS: PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: Reserved for craw- File Slump STIPULATION AND ORDER MOTIONS IN LIMINE CASE NUMBER: This stipulation is intended to provide fast and informal resolution of evidentiary issues through diligent efforts to define and discuss such issues and limit paperwork. The parties agree that: 1. At least days before the ?nal status conference. each party will provide all other parties with a list containing a one paragraph explanation of each proposed motion in limine. Each one paragraph explanation must identify the substance of a single preposed motion in limine and the grounds for the proposed motion. 2. The parties thereafter will meet and confer, either in person or via teleconference or videoconference, concerning all proposed motions in limine. In that meet and confer, the parties will determine: 3. Whether the parties can stipulate to any of the proposed motions. If the parties so stipulate, they may ?le a stipulation and proposed order with the Court. b. Whether any of the proposed motions can be briefed and submitted by means of a short joint statement of issues. For each motion which can be addressed by a short joint statement of issues, a short joint statement of issues must be ?led with the Court 10 days prior to the ?nal status conference. Each side's portion of the short joint statement of issues may not exceed three pages. The parties will meet and confer to agree on a date and manner for exchanging the parties' respective portions of the short joint statement of issues and the process for ?ling the short joint statement of issues. 3. All preposed motions in limine that are not either the subject of a stipulation or briefed via a short joint statement of issues will be briefed and ?led in accordance with the California Rules of Court and the Los Angeles Superior Court Rules. 075 (new) LASC Approved W11 STIPULATION AND ORDER - MOTIONS IN LIMINE For Optional Use Page 1 of 2 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER. The following parties stiputate: Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Date: (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) THE COURT SO ORDERS. Date: \7 ?f (ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT) (ATTORNEY FOR (ATTORNEY FOR (ATTORNEY FOR JUDICIAL OFFICER LACIV 075 (new) LASC Approved 04111 STIPULATION AND ORDER -- MOTIONS IN LIMINE Page 2 of 2 Su-erior Court of Caltornia County of Los Angeles ALTERNATEVE RESOLUTEON (ADR) PACKET The person who files a civil lawsuit (plaintiff) must include the ADR information Packet with the complaint when serving the defendant. Cross-complainants must serve the ADR Information Packet on any new parties named to the action together with the cross-complaint. There are a number of ways to resolve civii disputes without having to sue someone. These alternatives to a lawsuit are known as alternative dispute resolution (ADR). in ADR, trained, impartial persons decide disputes or help parties decide disputes themselves. These persons are called neutrals. For example, in mediations, the neutral is the mediator. Neutrals normally are chosen by the disputing parties or by the court. Neutrals can help resolve disputes without having to go to court. LAADR 005 (Rev. 03/ 17) LASC Adopted 10-03 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.221 Advantages of ADR a Often faster than going to trial . Often less expensive, saving the litigants court costs, attorney?s fees and expert fees. - May permit more participation, allowing parties to have more control over the outcome. 0 Allows for flexibility in choice of ADR processes and resolution of the dispute. 0 Fosters cooperation by allowing parties to work together with the neutral to resolve the dispute and mutually agree to remedy. There are fewer, if any, court appearances. Because ADR can be faster and save money, it can reduce stress. Disadvantages suitable for every dispute. 0 If ADR is binding, the parties normally give up most court protections, including a decision by a judge or jury under formal rules of evidence and procedure, and review for legal error by an appellate court. a ADR may not be effective if it takes place before the parties have sufficient information to resolve the dispute. The neutral may charge a fee for his or her services. a If the dispute is not resolved through ADR, the parties may then have to face the usuai and traditional costs of trial, such as attorney's fees and expert fees. The Most Common Types of ADR a Mediation in mediation, a neutral (the mediator) assists the parties in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution of their dispute. Unlike lawsuits or some other types of ADR, the parties, rather than the mediator, decide how the dispute is to be resolved. I Mediation is particularly effective when the parties have a continuing relationship, like neighbors or business people. Mediation is also very effective where personal feelings are getting in the way of a resolution. This is because mediation normally gives the parties a chance to express their feelings and find out how the other sees things. I Mediation may not be effective when one party is unwilling to cooperate or compromise or when one of the parties has a significant advantage in power over the other. Therefore, it may not be a good choice if the parties have a history of abuse or victimization. LAADR 005 (Rev. 03/17) LASC Adopted 10-03 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.221 Page 2 of 4 conference intake Form and email the completed form to mscdept18@lacourt.org. LAADR 005 (Rev. 03/17) LASC Adopted 10-03 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.221 Page 3 ol' 4 Arbitration in arbitration, a neutral person called an ?arbitrator? hears arguments and evidence from each side and then decides the outcome of the disoute. Arbitration is typically less formal than a trial, and the rules of evidence may be relaxed. Arbitration may be either ?binding? or "non? binding.? Binding arbitration means the parties waive their right to a trial and agree to accept the arbitrator?s decision as ?nal. Non?binding arbitration means that the parties are free to request a trial if they reject the arbitrator's decision. Arbitration is best for cases where the parties want another person to decide the outcome of their disoute for them but would iike to avoid the formality, time, and expense of a trial. It may also be appropriate for complex matters where the parties want a decision-maker who has training or experience in the subject matter of the dispute. '3 Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) Settlement Conferences are appropriate in any case where settiement is an option. Mandatory Settlement Conferences are ordered by the Court and are often held near the date a case is set for trial. The parties and their attorneys meet with a judge who devotes his or her time exclusively to preside over the MSC. The judge does not make a decision in the case but assists the parties in evaluating the and weaknesses of the case and in negotiating a settlement. The Los Angeles Superior Court Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) program is free of charge and staffed by experienced sitting civil judges who devote their time exclusively to presiding over MSCs. The judges participating in the judicial MSC program and their locations are identified in the List of Settiement Officers found on the Los Angeles Superior Court website at This program is available in general jurisdiction cases with represented parties from independent calendar (IC) and Central Civii West (CCW) courtrooms. in addition, on an ad hoc basis, personal injury cases may be referred to the program on the eve of trial by the personal injury master calendar courts in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse or the asbestos calendar court in CCW. in order to access the Los Angeles Superior Court MSC Program the judge in the IC courtroom, the CCW Courtroom or the personal injury master calendar courtroom must refer the parties to the program. Further, all parties must complete the information requested in the Settlement Conference Intake Form and email the completed form to LAADR 005 (Rev. 03/17) LASC Adopted 10-03 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.221 Page 3 of 4 Additional information To locate a dispute resolution program or neutral in your community: a Contact the California Department of Consumer Affairs Consumer Information Center toll free at 800-952-5210, or; 6 Contact the local bar association or; 0 Look in a telephone directory or search online for "mediators; or ?arbitrators.? There may be a charge for services provided by private arbitrators and mediators. A list of approved State Bar Approved Mandatory Fee Arbitration programs is availabie at To request information about, or assistance with, dispute resolution, call the number listed below. Or you may call a Contract Provider agency directly. A list of current Contract Provider agencies in Los Angeles County is available at the link below. csslacount . ov ro rams dis ute?resolution- ro ram-dr County of Los Angeles Dispute Resolution Program 3175 West 6th Street, Room 406 Los Angeles, CA 900204798 TEL: (213) 738?2621 FAX: (213) 386-3995 LAADR 005 (Rev. 03/ 17) Adopted 10-03 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.221 Page 4 or 4