SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-04-2015 10:05 am Case Number: CGC-15-547774 Filing Date: Sep-04-2015 9:56 Filed by: ROSSALY DELAVEGA Juke Box: 001 Image: 05062807 COMPLAINT SAMUEL HAMMER VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL 001005062807 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: scr TecinoLOGIES, INC, «Debwnre Copontin, RASTER {AVISO AL DEMANDADO): 11. 1Deiwe Lined Listy Coopuy:RASTERCA LL « Deere im Lily Company: GEORG GABRIELYAN, ‘SA.DOES I trough 10, cate ‘YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: Samuel Hamner (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): “HOTICRT Youve Baan ed. Th cout ry Gaia aga you WANG your big Tard ues yOu respond win 30 Gay. Raed te fon aw. “Yau have 30 CALENDAR OAYS after he surmove and tga papas are served on you ofa writen reeponee ia cout and have 8 copy ‘he cout dar raf waiver frm. you Sorat fe Your response on ne you may oe he case by Gefauk and your wages, many, and property a taken week rhe wesing Rom the cour. are cher og recquremers. You may wart to cal an storey ft evay. you do nat ow an aarey, you may went aca an storey telarrl sorte, you canes afer’ eh eomey, You my be ele fe lapel sara rom « nongrotagal eres progr. You can toate (er coutnn sa gear crac areca oy bao, MOTE: Ta rat a al fe twa ‘Sum on ory soternrt or ebro award f $10,000 or more i cave. The courte Hen mast be pad Dafre te cour wal ares te cane. |[AWt001 Lo han domendede. Sine responds Gane de 30 clas, core puede dei en ay conre sn escuchar su veri Le a nomeckin & suc c8. 60 ‘onece Ge ipos ce wu condede © onl ors gue le quad ma cree Ine puace page cts de presents, pide a scree 8 coe (gun ob in rmusrs de axencion Gu pag ce cute So presert by reqpuset& tempo, puede perder Gas por neunplmanto yi core ors quer ou suet. nar y bones an mas everienct. "hoy con regis logos. roccmandabe qe fare #un sbopado hmedltamerte. Siro concce# un sbopach,puade Kear un servis oo emai « sbopacoe 80 puede pagar & ut anagede, es poste que cule can be requsle pare obaner sero inguiae rato dt ‘rogram de snricoe egies tn free de re. Puede ancorter esos gupes jit Anas Ge re wo ato web de Callie Lage! Sandee, fumelewtetpelioraa on ao! Canto ae Ayuda ae a Cares ao Cala, wwte asca.ca. go 0 pankndoee on corti co lca oo! ‘Slog ce sbogados locos AVISO. Por hy, a crt ene Goreco a rears cuss ye coos exantos par inponer un greverren sobre ‘Caner recuperate do 310,000 6 ms Go valor recige meaaras in aueraoo una concean dv eine en un ceo do dere CM. Tene ue ‘begat grveen do ore ani de que la corte ped Gasechare caso, iene tnd soies oa a Boonie yn OR Sto nrc Spe Con PeueS ee ee Si caste “The name, addrees, ad telephone numberof paints atiomay, or paint wthout an attomey. i (Elnombre, a dreceién y el nimero de tléfono del abogado del cemandarte, 0 de que no tee aboged, 0 ore, POA TOE yer oF HE CO 1, Lo) es anindividual defendant. - 2, Fas the parvon aved under the etious name of, 3, onbehat of apecty under: [=] CCP 416.10 (corporation) (COP 418.60 (ino ES) cepstezeanncerpnten) ES copsr0 een) [CCP 418.40 (eesociton or perneraip) [=] CCP 416.60 (autora parton) Patatt ‘con cara ta a navn10 1" 2 43 14 16 6 "7 8 19 20 a 22 23 28 ar MICHAEL O. STEPHENSON (CBN 270724) MICHELLE L. WEISS (CBN 291904) Law Offices of Michael O. Stephenson 340 Pine Street, Suite 504 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 466-8717 Facsimile: (888) 563-7661 -_ Email: M.' enson@BayAreaBicycleLaw.com Email: M.Walssa@abayAreaBicycleLaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff Samuel Hamner SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. caseno. C602 152547774 SAMUEL HAMNER, > > Plaintiff, 4 } COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY and vs. ) PUNITIVE DAMAGES ) 1, NEGLIGENCE; UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Delaware) 2) NEGLIGENCE PER SE; Tent Coipeae easien ca TCT ) 3, STATUTORY LIABILI Delaware Limited Liability Company; GEORGI} NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT; GABRIELYAN; } 5. NEGLIGENT ‘and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. ) HIRING/RETENTION; ) 6. VICARIOUS LIABILITY; and Defendants. ; 7, STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY. > ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL UNLIMITED JURISDICTION Plaintiff Dr. Samuel Hamner (hereinafter referred to as “Dr. Hamner”) brings this action by and through his attorneys, Michael O. Stephenson and Michelle L. Weiss, and hereby ‘complains of the defendants above-named, and each of them as follows: I. SURISDICTION AND VENUE Page 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 “ 8 16 1. This honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter, and venue is proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395, because at all times relevant, the events which combined to [produce the injuries to Plaintiff occurred in the County of San Francisco, State of California, 2. Dr. Samuel Hamner has incurred more than the jurisdictional minimum of this court in medical expenses and lost wages. 3. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this court IL PARTIES A. Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff Samuel Hamner is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of the State of California, B. Defendants 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant GEORGI GABRIELYAN (hereinafter “GABRIELYAN”) was, and ‘now is, a resident of the State of California, residing in San Francisco County. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC (hereinafter “UBER”) is a Delaware Corporation and Does 1 -10 are corporations and/or business entities of a form unknown, which run a Transportation Network Company (hereinafter “TNC”) known as UBER which provide a number of transportation options and vehicles for users of their service, including a low cost option called Uber X, through an online-cnabled application (hereinafter “APP"). UBER has its principal place of business in and conducts business in San Francisco, California, 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that RASTER LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of UBER and the parent company of RASIER-CA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company. RASIER LLC & RASIER-CA LLC have their principal place of business and conducts business in San Francisco, California. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that UBER and DOES 1-10, use RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or DOES Page? VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “4 6 16 "7 8 » a 23 24 ar 21-30 to operate a TNC known as Uber X, a division of UBER and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30's commercial enterprise. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that RASIER-CA LLC has been assigned Carrier ID PSG0032512 by the California Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter “PUC”) and that UBER, RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 use Carrier ID PSG0032512 to operate its TNC, Uber X in California, 10, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that RASIER-CA LLC is the insurance certificate holder for the insurance that UBER is required to carry as a TNC by the PUC, which is uses for its Uber X operations. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant GABRIELYAN was the driver of the vehicle that injured Plaintiff Samuel Hamner. 12, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that on July 18, 2014, at the time of this collision, Defendant GABRIELYAN was a driver/transportation provider who was operating his vehicle utilizing the UBER APP and as such was an agent and/or employee and/or partner of UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or |RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and/or 21-30. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that at all times material to this complaint, UBER and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER- CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and/or Does 21-30 were the employer of Defendant GABRIELYAN, and/or his partner and/or an agency relationship existed between them. 14, Does 11-20 are designated in this Complaint as the owners of the vehicle driven by GABRIELYAN at the time of the collision, 15. Plaintiff is ignorant to the names of the Defendants sued herein and DOES | through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants may be Page 3 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 “ 16 6 7 8 ” a 2 2 ar responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries herein alleged were caused by the aforementioned Defendants. 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that at all times herein material to the matters alleged in this Complaint, each of the Defendants was the agent and/or employee and/or partner of each of the remaining Defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such an agency and/or employment, and/or aided and/or abetted the others and/or ratified the acts of the others so as to make them liable for the Plaintiff's damages. 17, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said. information and belief alleges, that there is a unity of interest and operation between UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER- CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 such that their separate and independent classification is but a fiction and that each is the alter-ego of the other. 18, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendants are liable for the acts of each other through principals of respondeat superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego and other forms of vicarious liability. 11. FACTS 19. Dr. Samuel Hamner was severely injured while riding his bicycle in San Francisco on July 18, 2014 as a result of a collision negligently and recklessly caused by a driver for Defendant UBER. 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the driver, Mr. GABRIELYAN, was in the scope of his employment with Defendant |UBER when he caused the collision. 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 and their Uber X service have been classified by the PUC as a TNC. 22, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER - CA LLC and Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 ~ 30, through its services, including Uber X, provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using Page 4 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “4 15 16 7 8 its APP or platform to connect persons wanting to procure transportation (hereinafter “USERS"), with those who, utilizing their own personal vehicles, want to provide transportation in exchange for compensation (hereinafter “DRIVERS”. 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that GABRIELYAN was logged on to the UBER APP at the time that the collision occurred and was appearing as a UBER and/or Uber X DRIVER available for providing transportation services to USERS and/or was viewing, monitoring and/or interacting with his ‘wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS at or near the time of the collision, and/or was cither traveling to a potential customer that has requested his services using the UBER APP, and/or was transporting a customer that he had picked up using the UBER APP. 24, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that before USERS can utilize the APP, USERS must become “partners” of UBER, UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER ~ CA LLC and Does 1 -10 and 21 — 30 by logging into UBER’s APP or web based portal and provide information about themselves to UBER including their ‘name, email, credit card number, mobile telephone, etc. Only registered USERS can use UBER’s APP to prearrange transportation service, 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that before DRIVERS can participate in UBER’s, RASIER LLC’s, RASIER — CA LLC’s and Does 1 — 10 and 21 — 30’s prearranged transportation service, including but not limited to Uber X, they must apply to be a DRIVER by logging into UBER’s APP or web based portal and providing information including but not limited to their name, phone number, address, e-mail, banking information, vehicle registration, insurance, vehicle description, and have their vehicle inspected. UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER - CA LCC and Does 1 -10 and 21 - 30 are required to conduct a background investigation of their DRIVERS including but not limited to their driving and criminal history (and thereafter conduct periodic reviews of their driving history). UBER, RASIER LCC and RASIER - CA LLC and Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 — 30 then evaluate the driver and only permit those drivers it finds suitable to become registered DRIVERS ‘on its APP. UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER — CA LLC and Does 1 -10 and 21 — 30 reserve Page 5 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 42 8 “4 6 16 ” 8 1° 20 a 2 23 28 ar the right to remove or delete DRIVERS from their systems at their discretion. Therefore UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER - CA LLC and Does 1 - 10 and 21 — 30 are entirely in control of who can use their system as either a DRIVER or USER. 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that only after USERS and DRIVERS have provided the information required by UBER, RASIER LLC AND RASIER - CA LLC and Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 ~ 30 can they participate in the prearranged transportation service. 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that USERS secking transportation services provided by UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER — CA LLC and Does 1 — 10 and 21 — 30, such as Uber X and its DRIVERS, log on to the APP which is under the URL, www.uber.com, and arrive at a main screen that says UBER. From that main screen they can navigate among different types of transportation services (generally distinguished by type of vehicle) including Uber X which is touted as “the low cost UBER.” 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that USERS who chose Uber X are shown a GPS map which displays vehicles available to provide transportation services in their area, After requesting a DRIVER, the APP alerts nearby DRIVERS who must timely indicate their acceptance of the USER’S transportation request by manually interfacing with the APP. Once the DRIVER accepts USER’s request that driver's name, photo, vehicle description, user rating, and time from pickup are displayed to the USER. 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that DRIVERS, in order to be available to provide USERS transportation services in exchange for compensation, must log on to the UBER and/or Uber X APP and indicate their availability. Their location and information is then visible to USERS and DRIVERS can access a screen on their electronic communication device/smart phone/GPS called a “God View”, which shows them a map of where others using the system are located. Page 6 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 43 4 18 16 7 8 19 a a 28 30, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the PUC has found that, “clearly, each TNC is receiving either an economic benefit or a business benefit. At a minimum, they are receiving increased patronage with the growth of their businesses.” 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that UBER and Uber X’s brand and value to USERS, and potential USERS, is enhanced by having a significant number of DRIVERS registered, visible to the USERS on the UBER APP, and available in close proximity to USERS so as to provide transportation services. Indeed UBER stated on its website “When you request a driver we'll find a driver and track their location on the map. Your driver’s name and car details appear in the app and you can message or call if you need to.” UBER’s, and/or RASIER LLC’s and/or Does 1 — 10 and 21 - 30’s competitive advantages in the transportation industry is fostered by having an APP that shows both DRIVERS and USERS where the other is, providing information and reviews about the DRIVER and USER, permitting communication by text and phone between DRIVER and USER and by demonstrating the large number of available DRIVERS which are logged on to the UBER APP. 32, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 - 10 and 21 — 30 derive an economic benefit from not only having USERS transported by DRIVERS collecting a portion of the charge for transportation, it derives an economic benefit, and competitive advantage, by displaying the location of available vehicles near the USER’s location. USERS secing the ready supply of UBER and/or Uber X vehicles have greater consumer confidence that they will be able to obtain one-to-one prearranged transportation services rapidly and are therefore more likely to be repeat customers. In this way UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER - CA LLC and/or Does 1 -10 and 21 — 30 enhance their business by attracting a larger number of USERS to their services and, therefore, increase their market share of the transportation industry and commerce in the business sector in which they are providing service. Therefore, regardless of whether a DRIVER actually has a USER in their car, is on the way toa Page 7 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 “ R 8 “ 5 16 "7 rr 9 a 25 28 a USER who has engaged the DRIVER through the APP, or simply is logged on to the APP as an available DRIVER, UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 -10 and 21 ~ 30 derives an economic benefit from having DRIVERS registered on the service. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the nature of the APP and its interface is both visual and tactile. Therefore, DRIVERS must monitor their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS so as to be aware of the location of other UBER and/or Uber X vehicles so they can position themselves near areas of high USER demand. The APP provides for texting and phone calling and instant messaging between the DRIVER and the USER. 34, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that UBER and/or Uber X DRIVERS must respond quickly to a USER request for service by physically interfacing with the APP thereby leading to distraction while a DRIVER ‘monitors and/or uses the APP on their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS. Defendants UBER and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21 - 30 knew, or should have known use of the APP by DRIVERS, including but not limited to GABRIELYAN, in the manner intended and actually required by UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASTER - CA LLC and/or Does 1 - 10 and 21 -30, would be in violation of California Vehicle Code 23123 which, in subsection (a) states “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands — free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving,” 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 -10 and 21 — 30 knew or should have known that use of the APP by DRIVERS, including but not limited to GABRIELYAN, in the manner intended and actually required by UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or Does 1 — 10 and 21 — 30, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21 - 30, would be in violation of CVC § 23123.5 which states “(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device ‘to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless Page 8 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 14 16 16 7 8 9 20 a 24 ar communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that matter while driving. (b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually ‘communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, [communications referred to as a text message, instant message or electronic mail.” 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Pursuant to CVC § 26708 any portable Global Positioning System (GPS), may only [be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower comer of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower comer of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door -to-door navigation ]while the motor vehicle is being operated.” 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the UBER APP is, by its nature, a GPS. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that use by UBER and Uber X DRIVERS of A GPS while engaged in the business activity of being a UBER or Uber X DRIVER is not door-to-door navigation and, therefore, violates California Vehicle Code Section 26708. 39, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the status of GABRIELYAN as an UBER and/or Uber X DRIVER, including but not limited to the use and/or monitoring of the APP and its interface, was a proximate cause of this collision including but not limited to its causing GABRIELY AN to be distracted while driving. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the design of the UBER APP and DRIVER interface, requires drivers to use the APP in such a manner as to violate the law, including but not limited to CVC §§ 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708, the legislative history of which is discussed, in part, in People v. Spriggs, (2013) 215 CalApp. 4" Supp. 1, thereby causing distraction to DRIVERS, including GABRIELYAN Page 9 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “ 6 16 "7 8 9 2 B 27 and, further, that GABRIELYAN’s distraction was a substantial factor in causing the subject accident and resultant harm, 41, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. GABRIELY AN was facing Dr. Hamner. 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, there was nothing outside of Mr. GABRIELYAN’s vehicle that was obstructing Mr. GABRIELY AN’s view of Dr. Hamner. 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. GABRIELYAN should have seen that Dr. Hamner ‘was proceeding through the intersection straight on McAllister Street. 44, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. GABRIELYAN should have been aware that Dr. Hamner had a green light. 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that as Dr. Hamner approached the intersection during the subject incident, Dr. Hamner had the right-of-way to proceed forward. 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that immediately before Mr. GABRIELYAN began to make a left tum onto Webster Street during the subject incident, Dr. Hamner had the right-of-way to proceed forward. 47. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. GABRIELYAN made a left turn at a time when it ‘was not safe to do so. 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. GABRIELYAN failed to keep a proper lookout. 49, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. GABRIELYAN did not see Dr. Hamner until after Mr. GABRIELYAN had already begun to make his left turn. Page 10 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “ 6 16 50, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. GABRIELYAN did not see Dr. Hamner until there /was less than 10 feet between them. 51. Asa result of the subject collision, Dr. Hamner was injured. 52. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that as a result of the subject collision, it was reasonably necessary for Dr. Hamner to be transported to San Francisco General Hospital. 53. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that as a result of the subject collision, it was reasonably necessary for Dr. Hamner to be transported to the hospital by ambulance. 54, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that as a result of the subject collision, the injuries to Dr. Hamner have resulted in more than $115,000.00 in medical expenses. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Negligence Against All Defendants) 55. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and the subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein, 56. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendants, and cach of them, owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable/due care as well as statutory duties established in California Vehicle §§ 21950, 23123, 23123.5, and/or 26708. 57. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1- 10 and 21-30 were negligent in their development, implementation, and use of the APP in the provision of prearranged transportation services in such a manner so as to lead to DRIVERS, including Defendant GABRIELY AN, to be distracted and/or inattentive while driving. 58, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 — Page 11 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 “4 15 16 7 8 9 a 3 25 ar 10 and 21 - 30 required its DRIVERS to use a smartphone APP and/GPS that causes, and did cause, driver distraction and inattention to the roadway, such that it was the proximate cause of the subject accident and resulting personal injuries to Plaintiff. 59, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that as Dr. Hamner was traveling eastbound on McAllister Street, approaching the intersection with Webster Street, Dr. Hamner had the legal right-of-way. 60, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that accordingly, any westbound traffic attempting a left turn onto Webster Street was required by law to yield to Dr. Hamner. 61. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at the time of the subject accident, Defendant GABRIELYAN was operating his vehicle in the scope and course of his employment/agency/partnership with UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 62. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendant GABRIELYAN negligently managed, maintained, and operated the said /motor vehicle so as to cause Dr. Hamner to be violently injured in a collision. 63. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at said time and place, Defendant GABRIELY AN operated said motor vehicle in a dangerous manner; failed to avoid a collision; failed to observe and exercise reasonable and due care and precaution and to maintain proper and adequate control of the motor vehicle; failed to keep a proper lookout for others; failed to safely make a left turn; failed to obey traffic laws and regulations; and was possibly negligent in other respects not now known to Plaintiff but which may become known prior to or at the time of trial. 64. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1- 10 and 21-30, and each of them, through their wrongful acts as set forth above, breached their duties of care and said breach was the proximate cause of Dr. Hamner’s injuries. Page 12 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 1“ 18 16 7 18 65. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that as a proximate result of the conduct of the previously referenced Defendants, Dr. Hamner was injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining shock and injury to the body, nervous system, and person, all of which have caused and continue to cause Dr. Hamner mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering, all to Dr. Hamner’s general damage in amounts not, fully ascertained, but that are to be determined at trial according to proof. 66. Asa further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Dr. Hamner has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses. The full amount of expenses is not fully ascertained, but is to be determined at trial according to proof. 67. Asa further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Dr. Hamner has sustained a loss of earnings, lost wages, loss of future earnings, and/or loss of future earning capacity. The full amount of loss of earnings, lost wages, and loss of future earnings, and/or loss of future earning capacity is not fully ascertained, but is to be determined at trial according to proof. 68. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Dr. Hamner’s personal property was damaged, all to Plaintiff's damages in amounts to be determined at trial according to proof. 69. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTI (Plaintiff's Claim for Negligence Per Se Against all Defendants) 70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. Page 13 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “4 16 16 BR. BRREBK AB 71. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all times material, the sections of the California Vehicle Code, as set forth elsewhere herein, were in full force and effect at the location of the incident giving rise to this action, 72. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at the time and place of the subject accident, Defendant GABRIELY AN failed to do ‘what was reasonably expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with said statutory sections. 73. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that California Vehicle Code §§ 21950, 23123, 23123.5, and/or 26708 were laws implemented by the state of California to protect individuals from injury or death due to inattentive or distracted drivers. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said {information and belief alleges that Plaintiff was and is a member of the class of persons intended 10 be protected by these laws. 74, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiff a duty to conduct their affairs in accordance with California Vehicle Code §§ 21950, 23123, 23123.5, and/or 26708. 75. Plaintiff is informed and belicves, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendants, and each of them, breached one or more of the duties established under California Vehicle Code §§ 21950, 23123, 23123.5, and/or 26708. 76. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at said time and place, Defendant GABRIELY AN violated CVC §§ 22348, 22350, , 21801, 22107, 22100, 21658, 22102, 23103, as well as other sections of the CVC, and the violations proximately/legally caused injury to Plaintiff and caused the associated damages as herein set forth. 77. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Plaintiff's injuries and damages as set forth herein resulted from an occurrence, the nature of which the above-referenced statutory sections were designed to prevent. Page 14 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES40 " 42 13 4 18 18 78, Defendants, and each of them, are therefore liable to Plaintiff for negligence per se. 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Statutory Liability/Permissive Use Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-30) 80. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and/or subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 81. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the aforementioned motor vehicle driven by Defendant GABRIELY AN was owned, leased, bailed, registered, controlled, maintained, and/or managed by Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1- 30. 82. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that said Defendants expressly and impliedly permitted the driver-Defendant to use the vehicle at all times alleged herein, including at the time of the collision alleged in this complaint. 83. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that by reason of the foregoing, and the application of various legal doctrines, theories, and rules, including but not limited to, the “permissive use doctrine” and CVC §§ 17150-17159, et seq,, the said Defendants, as the owners and/or bailees of the aforementioned motor vehicle, are statutorily liable for the acts and commissions of the vehicle’s driver to whom permission to operate said vehicle was given at the time of the alleged collision, Page 15 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “ 8 16 7 48 19 a 23 24 2 28 a 84, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that for the foregoing reasons, each/every defendant is responsible for Plaintiff's injuries resulting from the negligent and wrongful acts and omissions of the driver of the vehicle. 85. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that as a proximate result of said acts and status of defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered all the damages set forth elsewhere herein. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Negligent Entrustment Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-30) 86. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 87. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at said time and place, Mr. GABRIELYAN was negligent and unlawful in operating the said motor vehicle. 88, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-30 owned said motor vehicle. 89. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Mr. GABRIELYAN operated said motor vehicle with the permission and consent of Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-30. 90. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Mr. GABRIELY AN was unfit to operate said motor vehicle. 91. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-30 knew, or should have known, that Mr. GABRIELYAN was unfit to operate said motor vehicle. Page 16 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 " 2 8 “ 8 16 BS BRPREBRARB 92. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Mr. GABRIELYAN’s unfitness to drive was a substantial factor in causing harm to Dr. Hamner, FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Negligent Hiring/Retention Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-10 and 21-30) 93. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 94. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 owed the general public a duty of reasonable care in hiring, training, and supervision of its DRIVERS. 95. Upon information and belief Plaintiff alleges that Mr. GABRIELYAN was unfit to perform the work for which he was hired; that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 knew or should have known that GABRIELYAN was unfit and that this unfitness created a particular risk to others; that GABRIELY AN’s unfitness harmed Plaintiff; and that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30's negligence in hiring, supervising, and retaining GABRIELY AN was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm. 96. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that persons seeking to provide transportation services provided by UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER — CA LLC and Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 - 30, such as Uber X visit the URL, 'www.uber.com, and arrive at a main screen that says “UBER,” “EARN MONEY WITH US,” “There's never been a better time to drive with Uber,” and “Signing up is easy, and you'll be eaming money in no time.” From that main screen they can click a button that says “LEARN MORE.” Page 17 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “4 5 16 W 2 9 2 24 25 28 a 97. After clicking the previously-mentioned “LEARN MORE” button, the person is shown a sereen that says “IT’S EASY TO BECOME A DRIVER,” “We'll let you know when you've been approved,” and “Then, we'll give you a phone with the Uber app for drivers.” 98. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that this breach of duty was the proximate cause of harm to Plaintiff, causing him to suffer significant special and general damages in an amount to be proved at the time of trial. 99. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Vicarious Liability/Agency Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-10 and 21-30) 100. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 101. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Defendant GABRIELYAN was employed by Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 102. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Mr. GABRIELYAN’s conduct was within the scope of his employment with Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 103. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Mr. GABRIELYAN’s conduct was reasonably related to the kinds of tasks that Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Page 18 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “ 16 6 ” 8 1” 20 a 2 23 24 ar Does 1-10 and 21-30 had employed Mr. GABRIELYAN to perform; was reasonably foreseeable in light of Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 ‘and 21-30 business and/or Mr. GABRIELYAN’s job responsibilities; and was ratified by Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21- 30. 104, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 ratified Mr. GABRIELY AN’s wrongful conduct. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Products Liability-Bystander Theory Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-10 and 21-30) 105. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 106. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon said information and belief alleges, that Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 - 10 and 21 — 30 designed and/or distributed the APP and/or GPS interface/system that UBER DRIVERS, including GABRIELY AN, were required to use and furthermore trained or failed to adequately train them on how to use the APP and interface. 107. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that in doing so UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 - 10 and 21 — 30 did place the APP and GPS system into use and on the market. 108. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 -10 and 21 — 30 had, or should have had, knowledge that the APP and/or GPS interface would be used without inspection for defects and would be used in such a way as to violate one or more provisions of the California Vehicle Code and/or to create a significant risk of the type of harm suffered by the Plaintiff in this action. Page 19 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 “ 2 8 “ 5 16 109, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the defects in the APP and/or GPS interface were the direct and proximate cause of harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that strict liability extends not only in favor of the users and consumers, but also in favor of bystanders such as pedestrians and those riding bicycles. (Elmore v. American Motors Corp., (1969) 70 Cal.24 578, 585-587; Baker v. Chrysler Corp., (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 710, 715, Preissman v. Ford Motor Co., (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 841, 855.) 110. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the APP and/or GPS interface were/was defective. 111. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that as a proximate result of the product defect, Plaintiff suffered significant general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 112, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, according to law and according to proof, as follows: FIRST, SECOND. FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, and SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION 1. General damages, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 2, Special damages for medical and related expenses, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 3, Lost wages, loss of future carnings, and loss of camming capacity, in amounts according to proof at the time of trial; Page 20 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 4 168 6 7 Ty 9 20 a 2 23 24 28 ar 4, Property damage and loss of use of said property, in amounts according to proof at the time of trial; 5. Pre-judgment interest on damages, if appropriate; 6. Costs of suit; 7. Punitive Damages; and 8, Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: OA/O3/1S Page 21 v MICHAEL O. STEPHENSON MICHELLE L. WEISS Law Offices of Michael O. Stephenson Attorneys for Plaintiff; Samuel Hamner ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 “4 6 6 "7 18 1” 2 2 g VERIFICATION ‘The undersigned for himself declares: 11am the plaintiff in the above-titled action. I have read the forgoing complaint and know the contents thereof, The same is true by my own knowledge except for those matters which are therein stated upon information and belief. and. as to those matters. I believe them to be true. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct Dated: 2¢ AWE 2015 5p — SAMUEL HAMNER Page 22 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “ 5 16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Samuel Hamner demands a trial by jury on all claims. Dated: C1/03/15 Page 23 MMe bbc MICHAEL O. STEPHENSON MICHELLE L. WEISS Law Offices of Michael O. Stephenson Attorneys for Plaintiff, Samuel Hamner ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES[[artomey on Panry wiHOUT ATTORNEY tame Set Bernabe’ ar ae et CO ichael Stephenson (CBN: 340 Pine St Ste. 504 San Francisco, CA 94104 SEP TELWOnE (415) 466-8717 raxvo: (888) 563 - 7661 EP 04 2015 _ATTORNEY FOR (Name: quel Hamner, SLE SrERon Goon Gr caurorous,couwy oF San Francisco (SUERILOF Ine, COURT ‘street avoness: 400 McAllister Street anc acoress: same carvawo ze cove: San Francisco 94102 swvcxnue: Superior Court ASE NAME: Hamner v Uber et all [Slt 5 ‘CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation “547 774 CZ Urtintes LJ] Lite counter [2 Joinder (Amount (Amount ae demanded emendedis | Filed wh frst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 res)" (Cal, Rles of Court, rua 3402) [cer “Tams 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2) [!- Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: ‘to Tort ‘Contract Provilonally Complx Chil Litigation ‘Auto (22) J eeeach of conractwarranty (06) (Cal Rules of Court, rules 3.400-2.403) Uninsured motorist (48) TE) Rute 3.740 cottons (06) 1 Antirusttrade roguiaton (03) ‘ther PUPDIWD (Personal injuryiProperty ‘ter colectons (09) Construction detect 10) Damagenvronghu Death) Tort Insrance coverage (18) Mass tort (40) CF vests 0%) Totter contact (37) (secures itgaton 28) Prodi ait (24) Real Property [E) emironmentaToxic tort (30) Neal marie (8) [Eennencemanirvene =] inouance coverage dam arse ton be CD otter puppivo (23) ‘condemnation (14) ‘above listed nally complex C380 Non PUPDIWD (Other) Tort E Wongtl eviction (3) ‘pes 0) Business tute business pracice (07) [] Otter rea! property (26) fsroement of Judgment (vt ght (08) Unlawful Dotainer Enforcement of judgment (20) 1 betamation 13) LJ Commerciat (31) Miscollancous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) I Residentat (32) CO rwoen Inteletul property (19) T dngs 68) 1 otner complaint (not spectiod above (42) Professional negigence 25) ust Review ‘Miscotanoous Civil Petition ‘ter nor PUPDIWD tr (95) TI Asset frre (8) [Er Parmership and caxporate governance (24) [1 Peton:atiraton anart(t1) =] Ota patton rst emotes eso) 9) mae writ otmandat 2) nese [1 other juciciat review (30) 2 Tiscese [lis isnot complex under rule 3400 ofthe Calforia Rules of Court I the case fs complex, mark the factors requiing exceptional sical management 2.2] Large numberof separately represented partes [] Large number of witnesses ©. Extensive maton practice raising cic or novel e, [—] Coordination with related actons pending in one or more courts iss that willbe time-consuing to reat infer countes, stats, or counties orn a federal cour (Substantial amount of documentary evidence, (] Substantial postudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check a that app: a7] monetary [—] nonmonetary;decaratory or injunctive reiet ©: [—Tpuntive 4 Namba of cui of ate nec Seven 5 This case (_] isnot class action suit. 8. Ifthere are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.) Date: 9/3/2015 —_ Michelle Weiss > OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY ROR PRRTOT —_ GOUTRE «* Piaintf must file this cover sheet withthe frst paper filed inthe action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Wetfare and Insitutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may result In sanctions, * File this cover sheet in addltion to any cover sheet required by local court rule «If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Cour, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all ‘other parties to the action or proceeding. * Unless this isa collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes on! Famagpes i asroy ome TiviL CASE COVER SHEET SiINSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET cea To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are fling @ frst paper (for example, a complaint) in civil case, you must ‘complete and file, along with your frst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information willbe 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 forthe case type that best describes the case. Ifthe case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. Ifthe 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 ofthe cases that belong under each case type in tem 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be fled only with your inital paper. Failure to fle a cover sheet withthe fst paper fled in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2:30 and 3.220 ofthe California Rules of Court To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money ‘owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in \which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1 tot damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) @ prejudgment writ of attachment. ‘The identifcation of a case as a rule 3.740 colections case on this form means that it will be exemt from the general time-for-servioe requirements and case management rues, unless @ defendentfles a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case willbe subject tothe 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 plaintf believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the Califoia Rules of Court, this must be indicated by ‘Completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. Ifa 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 fist appearance a joinder in the plaints designation, a counter-designation thatthe case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that pe cee ere CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES. Auto Trt Contact Provsonally Comox Cv Lipton (Cl “ls (2-Pesoal hryPropery Trecho Coracarany (0) Fue of cout Ruoe 3400-3409), aroguttorgl Dea ‘uachoftesuicence "esse rae eptcn 3) Uninsured Motorist (46) (the ‘Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (10) Ses trates erence wrung eae) Gar irvtveg ts ot 4) moi com asec conraciarony ach Ser Secon Upon 2) Tieton ce om ha et eed orgs) Exeter one To 0) named oA) Neghgon ious ol Carat hnoueree Cero Cana ‘Other PUPDAND (Personal Injury! ‘Warranty (arising from provisionally complex: oT Cte rout of Conracarany se ioe teed aoe tor casa fon nay one. pun Enforcement suaant ebste (04) Sentosa) Sarena (2) hess Property Damage otocton Case Str at ‘ert are ut ‘betes Penal ny Sine bomssoy Nee/oatocons ‘worst Soat tne cone sont et ro pe ee ian Eb (nt provialy toxicfenvironmental) (24) complex) (18) ‘Sister State | See weno. Medea aac fo Saogaon Airave Agency Avert aad Garou tro upns tc) Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract (37) Petition/Certifcation of Entry of Other Professional Health Care ‘Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes ‘Malpractice oa rng Com DPE ‘Othe Enforcement of Judgment oer PPD) ease Trost 0. sp Trent Bomaivinerse iecetaneos Cv Complaint ra Cowenraten er iene Say unyPOMD ‘rong Sten 3) StrCompare sect (e4., assault, vandatism) (ther Real Property (¢.9.. quiet tile) (28) pk e iter tan Tanta Posse eel Pepe Dacron ale erbona Doves Monooge oreo Pian Neto oy ron Noaigen eter sore rer om PipowD Same arctan ot Other Comma Compa, Non PUPEMND (Othe To occ) ura) inners Torn Bsiness Unie Detinor teri Compan ache Commerce) al ee, Somewsalct Secerea onal false arest) (not cil ‘Drugs (38) if the case involves itoga! ‘Govemance (21) harestn (8) Tugs cect ns ho coor, Cer Peon (na spcted Defamation (eg. slander, bet) ‘mport as Commercial or Residential) fom am Jurca Revie 0) Fro set Prete (5) enpice acres Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Elder/Dependent Adutt Frscetona Negigee 25) Wot ante) “oe teoa apace ‘ive Mandamus elect Cont (Ber Betesal apractce Varcraancs oe Unio Gout Bacon Conta (rl medal ne, ‘ove Mate Paton or Ror meee citer No POEM Ta 5) Wich med Court Case an enplymine ‘Wrongful Termination (96). oer socal | Review (39) ours Sat Enpomen Tava ooo Ser Order Note ot Apea-Labor Sonics Spas ‘Beara tay 2 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET meee