CM-010 ATIORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address) : FOR COURT USE ONLY -John H. Gomez (SBN 171485), Allison Worden (SBN 211104), Ed Diab (SBN 262319), Kristen K. Barton (SBN 303228) GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 655 West Broadway, # 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 ~619) 237-3490 FAXNO.: (619) 237-3496 laintiffs Jessica Lincoln, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Diego sTREET ADDREss, 330 West Broadway MAILINGADDREss, 330 West Broadway cnY AND z 1p coDE: San DieI'to, ~A 9210 J BRANCH NAME: Hall of ustice TELEPHONE NO AnoRNEYFOR(NameJ. CASE NAME: Yolanda Allen, et al. v. Sharp Healthcare, a California Corporation, et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET D [ZJ Unlimited (Amount demanded exceeds $25,000) CASE NUMBER: Complex Case Designation Limited (Amount demanded is $25,000 or less) D D Counter Joinder Filed with first appearance by defendant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) JUDGE: 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: Contract Auto Tort D D AutD(22) Uninsured motorist (46) Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort D D D D Asbestos (04) Product liability (24) Medical malpractice (45) Breach of contracVwarranty (06) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other collections (09) Insurance coverage (18) Other contract (37) Real Property Eminent domain/Inverse condemnation (14) Wrongful eviction (33) D D Other Pl/PD/IND (23) Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort D D D D D D D Other real property (26) Business torVunfair business practice (07) Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Defamation (13) D D D D D Fraud (16) D D Intellectual property (19) D Professional negligence (25) D Other non-Pl/PD/WO tort (35) Employment D Wrongful termination (36) D Drugs (38) D Other employment (15) AntitrusVTrade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) [Z] Mass tort (40) D D D Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Securities litigation (28) Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41 ) Enforcement of Judgment D Enforcement of judgment (20) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RIC0(27) Other complaint (not specified above) (42) Miscellaneous Civil Petition D D D D D D Residential (32) Judicial Review Asset forfeiture (05) D Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Petition re: arbitration award (11 ) Writ of mandate (02) D D Partnership and corporate governance (21) Other petition (not specified above) (43) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case LLJ is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional j udicial management: LJ a. D Large number of separately represented parties d. [ZJ Large number of witnesses b. [ZJ Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. issues that will be time-consuming to resolve c. [ZJ Substantial amount of documentary evidence 3. Remedies so ught (check all that apply): a.[ZJ monetary 4. Number of causes of action (specify): D D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court f . [ZJ Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision b. [ZJ non monetary; declaratory or injunctive re lief c. [ZJ punitive Six 5. This case is [Z] is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case . (You may use form CM-015.) Date: April 4, 20 19 Kristen K. Barton (TYPEOR PRINT NAME) NOTICE • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed 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 co urt rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq . of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv. 15a Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007] CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET e 1 of2 CaL Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.40Q-3.403, 3.740; Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration. std. 3. 10 www.courtinfo.ca.gov INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM-010 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first 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 filed . You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific 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 th e cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees , arising from a tra nsaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice-Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other PI/PD/WD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WO (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Other PI/PDM'D Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g ., discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation (e .g., slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property ( 19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-Pl/PD/WO Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007] Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money owed , open book accounts) (09) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.g. , quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential} Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (1 1) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ- Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) EnvironmentalfToxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative A gency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (nonharassment) Mechanics.Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violen ce Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page2of2 SUM-100 SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE) (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AV/SO AL DEMANDADO): SHARP HEAL TH CARE., a California Corporation; SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL, and DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): YOLANDA ALLEN; JENNIFER BAUM; RITA BAZZI; BRANDEE BONIEDOT; FARIN BRADY; [please see attachment] NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhe/p), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service . If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. jAVISO! Lohan demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci6n a continuaci6n. Tiene 30 DiAS DE CALENDAR/0 despues de que le entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una 1/amada telef6nica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrarestos formularios de la corte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de la corte que le de un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que /lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede 1/amar a un servicio de remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con /os requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios /egales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia .org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el co/egio de abogados locales. AV/SO: Por fey, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar /as cuotas y /os coslos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): San Diego Superior Court CASE NUMBER: (Nu mero de/ Caso): HALL OF mSTICE 330 W. BROADWAY, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 -3827 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direcci6n y el numero de telefono de/ abogado de/ demandante, o de/ demandante que no tiene abogado, es): John H. Gomez (171485), Allison Worden (211104), Ed Diab (262319), Kristen K. Barton (303228) DATE: ae~.by , Deputy (Fecha) (Secretario) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served [SEAL] 1. as an individual defendant. 2. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): (Adjunto) D D 3. D on behalf of (specify): under: 4. CJ CJ CJ CJ D CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) D D D CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): by personal delivery on (date): Pa e 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009] SUMMONS Code of Civil Proced ure §§ 412.20, 465 www.courtinfo.ca.gov SUM-200(A) CASE NUMBER: SHORT TITLE: ~ Allen, et al. v. Sharp Healthcare, et al. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE + This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons. + If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: "Additional Parties Attachment form is attached." List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.) : [ZJ Plaintiff D Defendant D Cross-Complainant D Cross-Defendant CASSIE BRESNAHAN; LISA BUCKLEY; SHEILA BUSH-CHILDS; PATRICIA CASTILLO; TANEE CHAPPELL; MICHELE COLPITTS; REBECCA CORONA; JENNIFER CREAGER; LAURA DELL; AMANDA DIEGO; SHARON EDELMAN; BETH FREE; TAISHA GAINES; KRISTEN GASKE; DALIA GOMEZ; LEHUA GONZALEZ; ELIZABETH GORAYEB; SARAH HALL; KAILA HODGES; KATIE HOLMES; HEIDI HOLT; JOLIE IBRAHIM; VANESSA JACOBY; MARVIE JOHANSON; CANDICE JONES; CASEY JORDAN; CHRISTINE KELLEY; MARIAH LOPEZ; MARTICELLA LUZ; TAMARA MARSHALL; TAWNY MORGAN; SHANNAH MORRISON-SPAIN; VICTORIA PAIPA; LAURA PERALES; JESSICA POPE; GABRIELA RANGEL DUPUIS; URSULA SANCHEZ; MELISSA SANTOS; ROCHELLE SCHUSTER; BECCA STEELE; JENNIFER TALMADGE; SUWSAN TOMINA; WENDIE WARD ; BARBARA WOOTEN; KEONDRA YOUNG Page of Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California SUM-200(A) [Rev. January 1, 2007] ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT Attachment to Summons John H. Gomez (SBN 171485) 1 Allison C. Worden (SBN 211104) Ed Diab (SBN 262319) 2 Kristen K. Barton (SBN 303228) GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 3 655 West Broadway, #1700 San Diego, CA 92101 4 T: (619) 237-3490 F: (619) 237-3496 5 James R. Patterson (SBN 211102) 6 Allison H. Goddard (SBN 211095) 7 PATTERSON LAW GROUP 1350 Columbia St., Unit 603 8 San Diego, CA 92101 T: (619) 756-6990 9 F: (619) 756-6991 Duane A. Admire (SBN 173699) ADMIRE & ASSOCIATES 12880 Carmel Country Road, Suite D110 San Diego, CA 92130 T: (619) 319-6658 F: (858) 350-1046 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CASE NO: 14 YOLANDA ALLEN; JENNIFER BAUM; ) RITA BAZZI; BRANDEE BONIEDOT; ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 15 FARIN BRADY; CASSIE BRESNAHAN; LISA BUCKLEY; SHEILA BUSH-CHILDS; ) 16 PATRICIA CASTILLO; TANEE CHAPPELL; ) 1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ) MICHELE COLPITTS; REBECCA CORONA; 2) INVASION OF PRIVACY – ) 17 JENNIFER CREAGER; LAURA DELL; INTRUSION INTO PRIVATE ) AFFAIRS 18 AMANDA DIEGO; SHARON EDELMAN; ) BETH FREE; TAISHA GAINES; KRISTEN ) 3) INVASION OF PRIVACY (Cal. Const., Art. 1, § 1) 19 GASKE; DALIA GOMEZ; LEHUA ) GONZALEZ; ELIZABETH GORAYEB; 4) NEGLIGENCE ) 20 SARAH HALL; KAILA HODGES; KATIE ) 5) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF HOLMES; HEIDI HOLT; JOLIE IBRAHIM; ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 21 VANESSA JACOBY; MARVIE JOHANSON; ) 6) UNLAWFUL RECORDING OF ) CONDIFENTIAL 22 CANDICE JONES; CASEY JORDAN; ) CHRISTINE KELLEY; MARIAH LOPEZ; INFORMATION (Pen. Code ) 23 MARTICELLA LUZ; TAMARA §§632, 637.2) ) MARSHALL; TAWNY MORGAN; 24 SHANNAH MORRISON-SPAIN; VICTORIA ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) PAIPA; LAURA PERALES; JESSICA POPE; ) 25 GABRIELA RANGEL DUPUIS; URSULA ) SANCHEZ; MELISSA SANTOS; ROCHELLE ) 26 SCHUSTER; BECCA STEELE; JENNIFER ) 27 TALMADGE; SUWSAN TOMINA; WENDIE ) WARD; BARBARA WOOTEN; KEONDRA ) 28 ) GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 1 Complaint for Damages 1 YOUNG Plaintiffs, 2 3 vs. 4 SHARP HEALTHCARE., a California Corporation; SHARP GROSSMONT 5 HOSPITAL, and DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE, Defendants. 6 7 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby bring this Complaint for damages 8 against Defendants, and allege the following: 9 10 INTRODUCTION 1. From approximately July 17, 2012 to June 30, 2013, Defendants secretly operated 11 hidden cameras in all three Labor and Delivery operating rooms at the Women’s Center at Sharp 12 Grossmont Hospital. The hidden cameras were programmed to record anytime motion was detected in 13 the operating rooms. The hidden cameras recorded video images of births, including Caesarean births, 14 birth complications, dilatation and curettage to resolve miscarriages, hysterectomies, sterilizations, and 15 other medical procedures. 16 2. Sharp secretly recorded approximately 1,800 patients using these hidden cameras. In the 17 words of a Sharp executive, “the video clips capture scenes within the three operating rooms, which 18 are not open to the public. There are images contained within the multitude of images of women 19 undergoing operations of a very personal, private nature, unconscious and in states of exposure 20 depending on the operating being performed.” 21 3. Sharp was grossly negligent in maintaining the recordings. The recordings were stored 22 on desktop computers that could be accessed by multiple users, some without the need for a password. 23 Sharp did not log or track who accessed the recordings, why, or when. Sharp destroyed at least half of 24 the recordings but cannot say when or how it deleted those files and cannot confirm that it took the 25 appropriate steps to ensure the files were not otherwise recoverable. Computers that stored the 26 recordings were “refreshed” or replaced, and Sharp did not ensure proper deletion of recordings on 27 those computers. 28 GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 2 Complaint for Damages 1 4. Sharp has acknowledged patients’ rights to privacy in the recordings, under the 2 California Constitution and California law. Sharp violated their right to privacy and breached its 3 fiduciary duty in the most egregious way by secretly recording them, allowing non-medical personnel 4 to view the recordings without making any effort to track who was viewing them, and then destroying 5 some of the recordings. 6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7 8 5. The Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego has jurisdiction over this 9 matter because the allegations and claims herein arise under California common and statutory law. 10 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 395(a). Defendant 11 is a corporation organized under the laws of California and maintains its principal place of business in 12 San Diego, California. Defendant regularly conducts business throughout California, including San 13 Diego County, and a substantial portion of the harm caused by Defendant to Plaintiffs took place in 14 San Diego County. PARTIES 15 16 7. Plaintiffs are women who had procedures including, but not limited to, delivery of 17 babies, including Caesarean births, birth complications, dilatation and curettage to resolve 18 miscarriages, hysterectomies, sterilizations, and other medical procedures during the time frame of 19 July 17, 2012 to June 30, 2013. Plaintiffs’ procedures occurred in one of three Labor and Delivery 20 operating rooms at the Women’s Center at Sharp Grossmont Hospital that contained hidden cameras 21 placed there by the Defendants as set forth in greater detail herein. 22 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that they were secretly recorded 23 by the aforementioned hidden cameras at Sharp Grossmont Hospital. Plaintiffs had reasonable 24 expectations of privacy during their respective procedures and a reasonable expectation that 25 Defendants would respect their privacy. None of the Plaintiffs consented at any time to Defendants’ 26 recording of their private moments and medical procedures, and would not have consented to any such 27 recording. 28 GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 9. Defendant Sharp HealthCare is a corporation organized under the laws of California and 3 Complaint for Damages 1 maintains its principal place of business at 8695 Spectrum Center Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92123. 2 10. Defendant Sharp Grossmont Hospital is an affiliate of Sharp HealthCare that maintains 3 its principal place of business at 5555 Grossmont Center Drive, La Mesa, CA 91942. 4 11. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herein 5 under the fictitious names DOES 1-100 but pray for leave to amend and serve such fictitiously named 6 Defendants once their names and capacities become known. 7 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each and all of the 8 acts and omissions alleged herein were performed by, or are attributable to, Defendants and DOES 19 100 (collectively “Defendants”), each acting as the agent for the other, with legal authority to act on 10 the other’s behalf. The acts of any and all Defendants were in accordance with and represent the 11 official policies of Defendant Sharp HealthCare. 12 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that, at all times herein 13 mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and every act or omission alleged herein. At all 14 times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of 15 each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein alleged. 16 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of said 17 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible for the acts, 18 omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 19 20 15. In July 2012, Defendants installed video cameras on the drug carts in the operating 21 rooms in the Women’s Center at Sharp Grossmont Hospital. The video cameras were installed on top 22 of the drug carts and equipped with motion-detecting sensors that triggered them to begin recording 23 whenever anyone entered the room and continue recording even after motion stopped. 24 16. Defendants claim that this secret video surveillance was necessary as part of their 25 investigation into whether an employee was stealing the anesthesia drug propofol from drug carts in 26 the operating rooms. Despite that claim, Defendants’ cameras were set up to record when any person 27 entered an operating room, to record a wide range of activity in the operating room beyond access to 28 the drug cart, and to continue recording even after motion stopped. GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4 Complaint for Damages 1 17. Defendants recorded approximately 1,800 surgical procedures in the operating rooms 2 between July 2012 and June 2013. These recordings show images of Defendants’ female patients while 3 they were in the operating rooms. The cameras captured images of patients entering the operating 4 rooms, being moved onto surgery tables and exiting. Because of the angle and placement of the 5 cameras, patients’ faces were recorded, and the patients were identifiable. These recordings also show 6 Defendants’ female patients conscious and unconscious, partially robed on operating room tables, 7 undergoing medical procedures and communicating with their doctors and medical personnel. 8 Because of the nature of these procedures, the recordings captured women while they were 9 emotionally and physically exposed, and at their most vulnerable. At times, Defendants’ patients had 10 their most sensitive genital areas visible. 11 18. These recordings contain matters of great sensitivity, going to the core of patients’ 12 privacy rights. Defendants recorded using hidden cameras in an area of Sharp Grossmont Hospital that 13 is not open to the public. Entry into the operating room is limited to Defendants’ employees and 14 doctors who need to be there to perform medical procedures. 15 19. These recordings contain images of female patients and, sometimes, newly delivered 16 babies with their doctors that Defendants allowed non-medical personnel and strangers to view and 17 have access to view. Defendants did not log or track which employees accessed the recordings. 18 20. The patients did not consent to being recorded by Defendants during their medical 19 procedures. Defendants have several policies that recognize and obligate them to respect the privacy 20 of their patients. Defendants’ violations of their own policies underscore the shocking and serious 21 nature of their breach of patients’ privacy. Defendants’ Code of Conduct contains a “Standard of 22 Behavior” for confidentiality that states that “Sharp HealthCare protects customers’ confidentiality, 23 privacy and modesty in all situations. We are sensitive to the personal nature of health care, and we do 24 everything we can to earn the trust that others place in us.” 25 21. According to Defendants’ list of “Patient Rights,” their patients have a right to “[f]ull 26 consideration of privacy concerning their medical care program. Case discussion, examination, and 27 treatment are confidential and should be conducted discreetly. [Patients] have to right to be advised as 28 to the reason for the presence of any individual.” GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 5 Complaint for Damages 1 22. According to Defendants’ list of “Patient Rights,” their patients have a right to “[h]ave 2 [their] personal privacy respected.” 3 23. According to Defendants’ list of “Patient Rights,” their patients have a right to 4 “[c]onfidential treatment of all communications and records pertaining to [their] care and stay in the 5 hospital.” Defendants promise their patients that “[w]ritten permission shall be obtained before 6 medical records are made available to anyone not directly concerned with your care.” 7 24. Defendants violated these rights by failing to disclose to their patients, including 8 Plaintiffs, that a hidden camera was installed in the operating room recording their procedures, 9 essentially inviting an unlimited number of individuals to view the private circumstances of patients’ 10 medical treatment. Defendants violated these rights further by allowing non-medical personnel, 11 including security guards and attorneys, to view the recordings, without making any effort to log or 12 track who viewed the recordings. 13 25. This action seeks damages for the Plaintiffs according to their individual proof, and not 14 as part of a class action, for any and all harm they suffered as a result of being secretly and 15 surreptitiously videotaped as set forth herein. 16 26. Plaintiffs further allege that the limitations period is tolled under principles of 17 equitable tolling. 18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 19 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 20 (Against All Defendants) 21 27. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the allegations 22 set out in the preceding paragraphs. 23 28. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty to act with the utmost good faith in the best 24 interests of Plaintiffs, and to act with reasonable care. 25 29. Defendants further owed a fiduciary duty to maintain inviolate the confidential 26 information of Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, confidential communications under California 27 Evidence Code section 992. 28 GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 6 Complaint for Damages 1 30. Defendants had information relating to Plaintiffs that they knew or should have known 2 was confidential. 3 31. Defendants used Plaintiffs’ confidential information for their own benefit in conducting 4 an internal investigation or communicated their confidential information to third parties, all in violation 5 of California Evidence Code section 994. 6 32. Plaintiffs were ignorant of Defendants’ conduct, did not authorize their conduct, did not 7 give informed consent, or were acting under duress. 8 33. Plaintiffs’ confidential information was not a matter of general knowledge. 9 34. Plaintiffs placed trust and confidence in Defendants. 10 35. Defendants were Plaintiffs’ the healthcare providers. 11 36. Plaintiffs suffered harm, including but not limited to, suffering, anguish, fright, horror, 12 nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, mortification, hurt 13 feelings, disappointment, depression and feelings of powerlessness. 14 37. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 15 38. Defendants’ conduct as alleged above was despicable; it was conduct so vile, base, or 16 contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people. 17 39. Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged above with malice, oppression, or fraud in 18 that Defendants’ conduct was done with a willful and knowing disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, 19 Defendants’ conduct subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in knowing disregard of their 20 rights, or Defendants intentionally concealed a material fact (the secret recording devices) and did so 21 intending to harm Plaintiffs or in reckless disregard that such harm would result. 22 40. As a result, in addition to other remedies available, Plaintiffs may also recover damages 23 to punish Defendants and deter future similar wrongful conduct. 24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 25 INVASION OF PRIVACY – INTRUSION INTO PRIVATE AFFAIRS 26 (Against All Defendants) 27 41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the allegations 28 set out in the preceding paragraphs. GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 7 Complaint for Damages 1 42. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the operating rooms of Sharp 2 Grossmont Hospital’s Women Center. 3 43. Plaintiffs also had a reasonable expectation of privacy that their communications with 4 medical personnel and their medical procedures were not being video recorded. 5 44. Plaintiffs further had a reasonable expectation that their communications with medical 6 personnel and their medical procedures were not being recorded by Sharp security personnel or by 7 anyone not physically present in the operating room at the time of said communications and 8 procedures. 9 45. Defendants intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by installing recording devices 10 in the operating rooms. 11 46. Defendants also intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by recording Plaintiffs’ 12 confidential communications and medical procedures in the operating rooms of Sharp Grossmont 13 Hospital’s Women’s Center. 14 47. Defendants additionally intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by allowing third 15 parties, including Defendants’ security personnel and attorneys, to view the recordings of Plaintiffs. 16 48. Defendants further intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by disclosing certain 17 recordings of Plaintiffs to third parties during the course of an internal investigation. 18 49. In acting as alleged above, Defendants’ violated Plaintiffs’ privacy rights at a time when 19 Plaintiffs were at their most vulnerable. 20 50. In acting as alleged above, Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and motivated by a 21 commercial interest in disregard of Plaintiffs’ privacy rights. 22 51. Defendants’ intrusion into Plaintiffs’ privacy would be highly offensive to a reasonable 52. Plaintiffs suffered harm, including, but not limited to, suffering, anguish, fright, horror, 23 person. 24 25 nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, mortification, hurt 26 feelings, disappointment, depression and feelings of powerlessness. 27 28 GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 53. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 8 Complaint for Damages INVASION OF PRIVACY – CALIFORNIA CONST., ART. 1, § 1 1 (Against All Defendants) 2 3 54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the allegations 4 set out in the preceding paragraphs. 5 55. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the operating rooms of Sharp 6 Grossmont Hospital’s Women’s Center. 7 56. Plaintiffs also had a reasonable expectation of privacy that their communications with 8 medical personnel and their medical procedures were not being video recorded. 9 57. Plaintiffs further had a reasonable expectation that their communications with medical 10 personnel and their medical procedures were not being viewed or heard by Sharp security personnel or 11 by anyone not physically present in the operating room at the time of said conversations, 12 communications and procedures. 13 58. Defendants intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by installing recording devices 14 in the operating rooms. 15 59. Defendants also intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by recording Plaintiffs’ 16 confidential communications and medical procedures in the operating rooms of Sharp Grossmont 17 Hospital’s Women’s Center. 18 60. Defendants additionally intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by allowing 19 Defendants’ security personnel to view the recordings of Plaintiffs. 20 61. Defendants further intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by disclosing certain 21 recordings of Plaintiffs to third parties during the course of an internal investigation. 22 62. In acting as alleged above, Defendants’ violated Plaintiffs’ privacy rights under Article 23 I, section 1 of the California Constitution. 24 63. In acting as alleged above, Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and motivated by a 25 commercial interest in disregard of Plaintiffs’ privacy rights. 26 64. Defendants’ intrusion into Plaintiffs’ privacy would be highly offensive to a reasonable 27 person. 28 GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 9 Complaint for Damages 1 65. Plaintiffs suffered harm, including, but not limited to, suffering, anguish, fright, horror, 2 nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, mortification, hurt 3 feelings, disappointment, depression and feelings of powerlessness. 4 66. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 5 /// 6 /// 7 /// 8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 NEGLIGENCE 10 (Against All Defendants) 11 67. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the allegations 12 set out in the preceding paragraphs. 13 68. Defendants negligently intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by installing recording devices in 14 the operating rooms. 15 69. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable 16 care in the protection of Plaintiffs’ privacy in the operating rooms, where plaintiffs were at their 17 most vulnerable. 18 70. Defendants breached their duty and were negligent in their actions, misrepresentations, 19 and omissions in numerous ways including the following: 20 a. Installing hidden cameras in the operating rooms at Sharp Grossmont Hospital 21 Women’s Center in a manner that captured more than just the anesthesiology 22 carts on which they were installed; 23 b. Failing to inform patients that the room they were in was being recorded; 24 c. Failing to inform patients that their medical procedures, and communications with their doctors and hospital staff would be recorded; 25 26 d. Failing to obtain consent from Plaintiffs to record Plaintiffs while they were in 27 the operating rooms, their procedures, and their conversations with medical staff 28 while in the operating rooms; GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 10 Complaint for Damages 1 e. Failing to log or track who accessed the recordings; 2 f. Failing to use reasonable methods to ensure that any recordings that were deleted were not recoverable; 3 4 71. Defendants recorded Plaintiffs while in the operating rooms, undressing, undergoing 5 medical procedures, and at a time when Plaintiffs were at their most vulnerable, despite the fact that the 6 Defendants knew or should have known that the unconsented recordings were a violation of Plaintiffs’ 7 reasonable expectation of privacy. 8 72. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ negligence, willful, wanton, 9 and/or intentional acts, omissions, misrepresentations and/or otherwise culpable acts described 10 herein, Plaintiffs sustained the injuries, damages, and harm as alleged herein. 11 73. Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 14 (Against All Defendants) 15 74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the allegations 16 set out in the preceding paragraphs. 17 75. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendants has a duty to exercise reasonable 18 care in the protection of Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of privacy in the operating rooms of the 19 Sharp Grossmont Hospital Women’s Center. 20 76. Defendants negligently intruded on Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of privacy by 21 installing recording devices in the operating rooms at Sharp Grossmont Hospital Women’s’ Center. 22 77. Defendants also negligently intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by recording Plaintiffs’ 23 confidential communications and medical procedures in the operating rooms of Sharp Grossmont 24 Hospital’s Women’s Center. 25 78. Defendants additionally negligently intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by allowing 26 Defendants’ security personnel to view the recordings of Plaintiffs. 27 79. Defendants further negligently intruded on Plaintiffs’ privacy by disclosing certain 28 recordings of Plaintiffs to third parties during the course of an internal investigation. GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 11 Complaint for Damages 1 80. Plaintiffs suffered serious emotional distress, including, but not limited to, suffering, 2 anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, 3 mortification, hurt feelings, disappointment, depression and feelings of powerlessness. 4 81. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs is such that an ordinary, reasonable person 5 would be unable to cope with it. 6 82. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 7 /// SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 9 UNLAWFUL RECORDING OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (Pen. Code §§ 632, 637.3) (Against All Defendants) 10 11 83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the allegations 12 set out in the preceding paragraphs. 13 84. Defendants intentionally video recorded and/or eavesdropped on Plaintiffs’ confidential 14 communications and medical procedures in the operating rooms of Sharp Grossmont Hospital’s 15 Women Center by using an electronic device (hidden video cameras). 16 85. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that their medical procedures were not being 17 video recorded. 18 86. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that their communications with medical 19 personnel and their medical procedures were not being viewed by Sharp security personnel or by 20 anyone not physically present in the operating room at the time of those procedures. 21 87. Defendants, by acting as herein alleged, unlawfully recorded confidential information of 22 Plaintiffs and violated Plaintiffs’ privacy rights in violation of California Penal Code §§ 632 & 637.2 23 88. Defendants did not have the consent of all parties to said conversations and 24 communications to record them. 25 89. Plaintiffs suffered harm, including but not limited to, suffering, anguish, fright, horror, 26 nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, mortification, hurt 27 feelings, disappointment, depression and feelings of powerlessness. Plaintiffs are entitled to treble 28 damages for such harm. GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 12 Complaint for Damages 90. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plainti ffs' harm. As a result, 2 and in addition to other available remedies at law , pursuant to Penal Code section 637.2, Plaintiffs are 3 entitled to recover a sum equal to the greater of treble their actual damages or statutory penalties per 4 5 violation. 91. Plaintiffs, in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of 6 Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, also bring an action to enjoin and restrain the Defendants from 7 any violation of this chapter by continuing to secretly video record medical procedures without the 8 consent of all parties. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 9 10 1. For compensatory damages for the described losses with respect to each cause of action; 11 2. For general damages according to proof; 12 3. For special damages according to proof; 13 4. For statutory penalties according to proof; 14 5. For past and future emotional distress; 15 6. For punitive damages with respect to each cause of action; 16 7. For costs of this action; 17 8. For statutory attorneys' fees according to proof; 18 9. For reasonable attorneys' fees; 19 l 0. For pre-judgment and all other interest recoverable; and 20 11 . For such other additional and further relief as Plaintiffs may be entitled to in law or in 21 equity. 22 23 Dated: April 4, 2019 GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 24 25 26 27 By: ~~ _...,_b--=17C5- John H. Gomez, Esq. Allison C. Worden, Esq. Ed Diab, Esq. Kristen K. Barton, Esq. 28 GOMEZ TRIAL 13 AITORNEYS Complaint for Damages PATTERSON LAW GROUP James R. Patterson, Esq. Allison H . Goddard, Esq. 2 ADMIRE & ASSOCIATES Duane A. Admire, Esq. 3 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 6 7 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 8 Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues. 9 10 Dated: April 4, 2019 GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 John H . Gomez, Esq. Allison C. Worden, Esq . Ed Diab, Esq. Kristen K. Barton, Esq . PATTERSON LAW GROUP James R. Patterson, Esq. Allison H . Goddard, Esq . ADMIRE & ASSOCIATES Duane A. Admire, Esq. 19 20 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GOMEZ TRIAL 14 ATIORNEVS Complaint for Damages CM-015 y olanda Allen, et al. PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CASE NUMBER: Sharp Healthcare, a California Corporation, et al. 2. (continued) e. Case type: f. Filing date: D m limited civil D unlimited civil probate D D family law other (specify): I/ I 2/2017 D g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" Yes m No h. Relation ship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): m involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. [ZJ arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. CJ involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. [ZJ is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 2h i. Status of case: 3. m pending CJ dismissed D disposed of by judgment CJ D with without prejudice Usher v. Sharp Healthcare Case number: 37-20 I 8-00017113 -CU-PO-CTL Court: [ZJ same as above a. Title: b. c. CJ other state or federal court (name and address): C-74 d. Department: e . Case type : D f. Filing date: 04/06/2018 g. limited civil m unlimited civil D probate Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" D D family law Yes m D other (specify): No h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): m involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. [TI arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. CJ involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. [ZJ is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. CJ Additional explanation is attached in attachment 3h i. Status of case: m CJ CJ 4. [ZJ Date: pending dismissed D with D without prejudice disposed of by judgment Additional related cases are described in Attachment 4. Number of pages attached: __ l_ April 4, 2019 Kristen K. Barton (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) CM-015 IRev. July 1, 2007) ~2WiAzitL:s , (: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE NATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) Page 2 of 3 I~,,,,.~. ~HORTTITLE ATTACHMENT (Number): MC-025 _4______ (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) 4. a. Title: Lincoln v. Sharp Healthcare b. Case number: 37-2019-0001 6922-CU-MT-CTL c. Court: Same as above d. Department: C-64 e. Case type: Mass Tort f. Filing date: 3/29/2019 g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?": Yes h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above: -involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. -arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. -is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. i. Status of case: Pending (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California MC-025 (Rev. July 1, 2009) ATTACHMENT to Judicial Council Form Page of (Add pages as required) www.courtinfo.ca.gov CM-015 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: y olanda Allen, et al. Sharp Healthcare, a California Corporation, et al. CASE NUMBER: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Related Case if you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service. The notice must be served on all known parties in each related action or proceeding.) 1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify): Gomez Trial Attorneys, 655 W. Broadway, Ste 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 2. I served a copy of the Notice of Related Case by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with first-class postage fully prepaid and (check one): D b. W a. deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. The Notice of Related Case was mailed: a. b. March 29, 2019 from (city and state): San Diego, CA on (date): 4 . The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served: Teresa C. Chow Street address: 1160 I Wilshire Blvd Ste 1400 City: Los Angeles State and zip code: CA 90025-0509 b. Name of person served: d. Name of person served: Rouben Varozian Street address: 16130 Ventura Blvd, Ste 570 City: Encino State and zip code: CA 91436 D Matthew D. Pearson 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 City: Denver State and zip code: CO 80202-2662 Street address: Street address: City: State and zip code: Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: April 4, 2019 Nicole Stoneman (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) CM-015 (Re v. July 1, 2007] NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Page 3 of 3