IO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-18-2015 8:16 am Case Number: CGC-15-549489 Filing Date: Dec-17-2015 8:09 Filed by: MADONNA CARANTO Juke Box: 001 Image: 05201701 COMPLAINT MUNJED HADDAD VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. ET AL 00105201701 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.© 3 suM00 Sento BESS Bem (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RAISER, LLC; RAISER-CA, LLC; CHASE ORTEGA; VICTORIA TACKETT; and DOES 1-20 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): MUNJED HADDAD 'WOTICET You ave been sued. The court may dedi againslyou witout you bog heard unless you respond within 30 Gays Read Whe WWormation below. ‘You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after his summons and legal papers are served on you to flea wren response at fie court and have 9 copy served onthe paint letr or prone cal wll notprotct you. Your wit resperse mus be In proper legal form you want the cour To Meet your ‘ase. There may bea cout form thal you can use fr your response. You can find these court forms and more information a the Calforia Cou Calne Sel-Help Center (nmv.courtnf.ce ove) your county aw ibrar. or te courthouse nearest ou. Hf you cannot pay the fing fee, atk the court clerk for a fee waiver frm. I you donot fle your response on time, you may lee tho case by eau, and your wages, money, and propery ‘may be taken without furter waning fom the our. “There are cher lagal requirements. You may want to call an atiomey ight away. you do not know an attomey, you may want to call an atomney referral service. you cannot afford an atorey, you may be eigbe fries logl services from a nonproft legal services program You can locale {these nonprofit groups at fe Calfornia Logal Services Web sto (www lewnapcalfomia or), te Calforia Courts Onine SesHelp Center (ani courinte a gow/sthwep),orby contacting your local cour or court bar assocallon, NOTE: The cout has a ealutory hen fr waved fees and ‘costs on any selement or arbitration award of 10,000 o moe ina Gu case. The cours len mustbe pad betore the court wil dismiss the case IAVISO! Lohan demanded. ino respande dentro de 30 as, la carte puede deci en su contra sin escuchar su vrai. Lea la inormacién © eontinvacion Tlane 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que lo entreguen esta ctacién y pales lgales para presentar une repuesa por escri en esta cars yhacer que 6 entregue una copia al demandante. Una cata o una lamade tletonca no 0 orotagen. Su respuesta por eactfo hare Que esa” fen formato loge correcto desea que procesen su caso on a corto. Es posble que haye un frmutare que usted pueda Usar pare eu respuesta. Puede encontrar estes formulanos de a cote y mas infomacén nol Cntr de Ayuda do las Cres de Calfora (www eucate.ca. gov) ena ‘Diboteca doles de su candac o en la crt que le quade mss ceca. Sino puede pagar lacucta de presenta, pe 8 socretaa de a corte {ue le dé un formutario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Sn present su respuesta @tompo, lode perder el caso pr incumplmiento ya core le ots quitarsu suelo, cneroy Benes sin més advertancia ‘Hay eros requlatoslogales. Es recomend que lame @ un abogedo inmediatamente. Sino conoce 2 un abogado, puede lamar a un serio de ‘ramision a abogados. Sno puede pagar a un abogeco, es posible ue cunpla con los quis para obtener servicios legabs gratuites de Un programs de serio logaes sin fines do lucro. Puede enconrar estes grupos sin hes do ue on oslo wed do Calfomie Legal Senos. {wu lwhelpcaltomia.org),en el Centro de Ayude de las Cros de Calfomia (wera sucone.ca gov) 0 pontandose on contacto con la corte 0 el ‘colegio de abogados cals. AVTSO: Por ley a corte ane dorecto a rclema las evel y os castos axantos por mpenerun gravaren sobre ‘cualquier recuperaccn de $1,000 6 ms de valor recbics mectante un scuerdo a na concesin de arta en un caso de derecho Gu, Tene Que aga el eravamen dol corte antes do quo la corte pueda decor al casa. Ginombrey aresson ce lnesre se). San Francisco Superior Court et “549489 400 McAllister Street San Franeisco, CA 94102 ‘The name, address, and telephone numberof piaintis attorney, or plainti without an attorney. is (Elnombre, (a creccién y el nimero de telfono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Philip A. Segal, Esq., 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94109 (415) 474-1900 DATE: WH = CLERKOF THECOURT —Gietk by ONNA CABANTO (Fecha) O&C 17 (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For proof of serves of tis Summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-O70)) (Para prueba de entroga de esta citatiin use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010) NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served {3s an individual defendant {a the person sued under the fcttious name of (speci) 3, (J onbehait of (specify) under: =] cP 416.10 (corporation J cP 416.60 (minor) (CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) (2) CcP 416.70 (conservatee) [5 CoP 416.40 (association or partnership) [=] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) 2) other (specify): 4. [1 by personal delivery on (cat): a ‘SUMMONS Sate omega 2 Sine hw 200,12 B 4 15 18 9 20 au 2 23 4 25 26 27 28 PHILIP A. SEGAL, ESQ. 137633 © ° F KERN, NODA, DEVINE & SEGAL 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 600 . L San Francisco, CA 94109 Beaty SPR aren Tel: (415) 474-1900 Fax: (415) 474-0302 DEC 17.2015 CLERK OF THE COURT Attorney for Plaintiff, MUNJED HADDAD deputy Clerk” SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MUNJED HADDAD, no (60 15-549489 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 1. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE vs. WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RAISER, 2. NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE LLC; RAISER-CA, LLC; CHASE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ORTEGA; VICTORIA TACKETT; and ADVANTAGE DOES 1-20, 3. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH Defendants. AND FAIR DEALING BREACH OF CONTRACT BATTERY ASSAULT NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff MUNJED HADDAD (“Plaintiff”) as an individual herein alleges as follows: PARTIES AND VENUE 1, Plaintiff is and was at all times relevant hereto, a resident and citizen of the State of California, 2. Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is a Delaware Corporation with its headquarters and primary place of business located in the City and County of San Francisco. 3. Defendant RASIER, LLC is a Delaware limited Liability Company. It is a subsidiary of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and licenses technology from defendant COMPLAINT HADDAD V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, ET. AL. ole10 u n b 4 1s 16 W 19 20 2 Py 26 27 28 © 9 UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. 4, Defendant RAISER-CA. LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. It is a subsidiary of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. RAISER-CA, LLC has obtained a Class P Transportation Network Company Permit from the California Public Utilities Commission (cPuc”) 5. Atall times, each defendant has committed the acts, caused others to commit the acts, ratified the commission of the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this complaint. Whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act of defendants, such allegation shall mean that each defendant acted individually and jointly with other defendants. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RAISER, LLC, and RAISER-CA, LLC shall be referred to collectively as “UBER.” 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the defendants sued herein under the fictitious names of DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names, Each fictitiously named defendant is responsible in some manner for the violations of law herein alleged. Plaintiff will amend its complaint to show the true names and capacities of such defendants, as well as the manner in which each fictitious defendant is responsible for the causes of action herein alleged, when these facts are ascertained. 7. Defendants at all times mentioned herein are citizens of the State of California or have transacted business within the City and County of San Francisco and throughout the State of California. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. On information and belief, on or about July 2014, Plaintiff entered into a direct business relationship with Defendant Uber. As a result of the direct business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant Uber a direct business relationship was also created between Plaintiff and Users of Defendant Uber’s mobile application (“Users”). As a result of these direct business relationships Plaintiff would fulfill requests for transportation services from users of Defendant Uber’s mobile application. Plaintiff satisfied all (COMPLAINT HADDAD V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, ET. AL. 22+10 n 2 B 4 15 16 "7 18 19 20 aa 2 23 24 28 26 27 28 © 9 requirements of him from the business relationships that were created. 9. On information and belief, on or about, 9/27/15 Defendants Chase Ortega Ortega”) and Victoria Tackett (“Tackett) requested transportation to 50 3rd Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94118 from Defendant Uber’s mobile application. Plaintiff responded to the request and proceeded to pick up Defendants Ortega and Tackett. Defendants Ortega and Tackett requested to be driven to 50 3rd Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94118. Plaintiff discovered no such address existed in San Francisco and noticing that Defendants Ortega and. Tackett were intoxicated, Plaintiff informed Defendants Ortega and Tackett no such address existed in San Francisco prior to proceeding to drive them. However, Ortega and Tackett demanded to be driven to that area. 10, On information and belief, upon arrival to the intersection of Califomia and Arguello in San Francisco City and County, Plaintiff informed Defendants Ortega and Tackett this was the closet intersection to the address they demanded to be dri Defendants Ortega and Tackett became irate and verbally abusive to Plaintiff as they realized too. they needed to be driven to 50 3rd Street not Avenue. However, Plaintiff informed Defendants Ortega and Tackett that they inputted in the Uber mobile application they wanted to be driven to 50 3rd Avenue and Plaintiff also confirmed this with them prior to proceeding to drive to the location. 11. On information and belief, Plaintiff parked his vehicle and stepped out of his vehicle since Defendants Ortega and Tackett were irate and verbally abusive and requested Defendants Ortega and Tackett to exit his vehicle. Defendant Ortega exited the vehicle and stated to Plaintiff, “Do you want to fight.” Thereafter, Defendant Ortega attempted to hit Plaintiff in the face and Plaintiff attempting to defend and protect himself attempted to grab Defendant Ortega’s arms which caused them to fall to the ground. 12. On information and belief, Defendant Uber without investigating the incident that occurred on 9/27/15 between Plaintiff and Defendants Ortega and Tackett and in violation of the agreement and business relationship that existed between Defendant Uber and Plaintiff terminated and discontinued Plaintiff's access to his Uber mobile application COMPLAINT HADDAD V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES ING, ET. AL. <31B 1“ 15 6 " 18 19 21 2B 28 26 27 28 © 9 account which was Plaintiff's only means of communicating with users of the mobile application, who he had a good and long standing business relationship with, CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) (Against Defendant Uber and Does 1 through 20) 13, Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges all paragraphs previously alleged in the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 14, Plaintiff had established a direct business relationship with Users of Defendant Uber’s mobile application which resulted in an economic benefit to Plaintiff. Plaintiff had economic relationships with the users who were ready, willing and able to do business with Plaintiff, which would have resulted in the continuation of economic benefits and future economic benefits. 15. Defendant Uber’s conduct of terminating and discontinuing Plaintiff's access to his Uber mobile application account was designed to disrupt the economic relationship between Plaintiff and users of Defendant Uber’s mobile application, and indeed, the relationship was disrupted as a result of Defendant Uber’s interference in that prospective user. Defendant Uber knew that Plaintiff's only means of communicating with the users was through Defendant Uber’s mobile application. Defendant Uber’s conduct has prohibited Plaintiff from conducting business with the users and has resulted in the termination of Plaintiff's communications and business relationship with the users. 16. Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages as a result of Defendant Uber's actions including but not limited to the loss of business, business opportunities, revenues and profits and plaintiff will continue to suffer similar loses after filing this complaint. 17. As a proximate result of Defendant Uber’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. However, those damages far exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum of this Court. COMPLAINT HADDAD V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, ET. AL. 4Bb 4 1s 6 7 21 2 2B 28 26 27 28 © 9 18. The conduct of Defendant Uber in interfering with Plaintiff's economic relationships was intentional, willful, and calculated to cause damage to Plaintiff's lawful business. The conduct of Defendant Uber was perpetrated with actual malice and ill will toward Plaintiff and with the intentional and improper purpose of causing damage. As a result, an award of punitive damages is warranted. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) (Against Defendant Uber and Does 1 through 20) 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges all paragraphs previously alleged in the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 20. Plaintiff had established a direct business relationship with Users of Defendant Uber’s mobile application (“Users”) which resulted in an economic benefit to Plaintiff Plaintiff had economic relationships with the users who were ready, willing and able to do business with Plaintiff, which would have resulted in the continuation of economic benefits and future economic benefits. 21. Defendant Uber knew or should have known about these relationships and prospective relationships at all relevant times. 22. Defendant Uber acted negligently in relation to Plaintiff's efforts to communicate with his prospective clients in that Defendant Uber terminated and discontinued Plaintiff's access to his Uber mobile application which was Plaintiff's only means of communicating with his clients. 23. Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages as a result of Defendant Uber’s actions including but not limited to the loss of business, business opportunities, revenues and profits and plaintiff will continue to suffer similar loses after filing this complaint. 24. As a direct result of Defendant Uber’s actions Plaintiff's prospective economic relationship with the users has caused Plaintiff to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial. However, those damages far exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum of COMPLAINT HADDAD V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, ET. AL. 5-10 2 1B 4 7 18 9 2 21 23 24 25 26 2 28 © 9 this Court. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Against Defendant Uber, and Does 1 through 20) 25. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges all paragraphs previously alleged in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 26. Plaintiff entered into a direct business relationship with Defendant Uber on or about July 2014. Plaintiff has satisfactorily performed all the duties and conditions of the business agreement. Plaintiff at all times fulfilled hishher duties and conditions under the business relationship contract and has been ready, willing, and able to continue performing them in a competent and satisfactory manner. 27. A covenant of good faith and dealing is implied in every business contract. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which obligated Defendant Uber to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement fairly and in good faith and to refrain from doing any act that would prevent or impede plaintiff from performing any or all of the conditions of the contract that he agreed to perform or any act that would deprive plaintiff of the benefits of the contract. 28. Defendant Uber breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the business relationship by breaching the agreement when Defendant Uber discontinued Plaintiff's access to his Uber account, Defendant further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by violating and failing to follow its own personnel policies. 29. Asa proximate result of Defendant Uber’s breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages as a result of Defendant Uber’s actions including but not limited to the loss of business, business opportunities, revenues and profits and plaintiff will continue to suffer similar loses after filing this complaint. As a further proximate result of Defendant Uber's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, plais ‘iff has incurred reasonable attorney's fees in COMPLAINT HADDAD V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, ET. AL. 716 7 18 19 21 2 24 2s 26 2 28 © 9 attempting to secure the benefits owed to him under the direct business relationship created with Defendant Uber and users. 30. As a proximate result of Defendant Uber’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered ‘damages in an amount to be proven at trial. However, those damages far exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum of this Court. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Contract (Against Defendant Uber and Does 1 through 20) 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges all paragraphs previously alleged in the Complaint as if fully set forth herein, 32. On information and belief, on or about July 2014, Plaintiff entered into a direct business relationship with Defendant Uber. Plaintiff has performed all the conditions, covenants and promises required by the agreement. Defendant Uber lead Plaintiff to believe that as a result of the direct business relationship that was created Defendant Uber would maintain insurance. Defendant Uber breached this term of the business relationship. 33. Plaintiff had to be transported to St. Mary’s Hospital via ambulance and was required to obtain medical services and treatment due to the injuries suffered from the assault and battery by users of the Uber mobile application, Defendants Ortega and Tackett. 34, Plaintiff attempted to file a workers compensation claim for those injuries sustained from the assault and battery by Defendants Ortega and Tackett but was informed that Defendant Uber did not carry workers compensation insurance. 35. As a proximate result of Defendant Uber’s breach of contract Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages as a result of Defendant Uber’s actions including but not limited to medical bills, pain and suffering . 36. As a proximate result of Defendant Uber’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered Prpauct tity (24) Real Property [2 EnviconmentalToxic tort (30) Te Mledical matpracce 45) (1 Einent domaivtnverse TE tnsurance coverage clan arising fom the ‘har PLPOIND (23) ‘condones (1) ‘Shove eted prosonty compos case, Non-PvPDIWD (Other) Tort TE wren evton (3 ines et) Business uni bsinesspractee (07) L] terest property (28) Enforcement of Judgment [co gts oe) ate Detain C7 enoccoment foment 20) Defamation (19) CD cemeerca o1) callous Cll Complaint Fraud (16) [1 Resisenit (22) Cl roe Intetectual property (19) 1 orgs 8) 5 other complain not specited above) (42) | Protestenaletance 28) Judicial Review iamenamies oeabsaee [oer son euPOAND on 5) H Aca 0) a) tapas create overanss 2) lommant ton: arbtraton a Ee ee ee CaN ror teinten 05 (Sy weer imandt 2) eration ssc toe) Footer employment 15) [oer sa oven 99) 2 Thiscase LJis [ZTisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. Ifthe case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management a.) Large number of separately represented parties d. [_] Large number of winesses b.[_] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. [__] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts, issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c (7) Substantial amount of documentary evidence 1, [1 Substantial postudgment judicial supervision 2. Renee sg ck al ata aCZ]menetay =] nomenon decraan ohncive el « CEAGrave 4, Number of causes of action (specify) 7 5. Thiscase [lis [isnot _actass action suit. 6. Itthere are any known related cases, fle and serve anatce of related case, (You may us Date: December 7, 2015 PHILIP A. SEGAL, ESQ. > rive on RT m NOTICE «+ Plain must file this cover sheet wit the fist paper fied in the action or proceeding (except sal clsfns cases or cases filed tinder the Probate Code, Family Code, of Welfare and institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may result in sanctions ‘+ Fp this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rue + I this case fs complex under rule 3.400 et seq. ofthe Calfomta Rules of Cour, you must sere a copy ofthis cover sheet on all ‘other parties tothe action or proceeding, « Uniess this is a collections case under rue 3,740 or a complex case, this cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes only. f ERPS Se CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET SRT ae ae aise omen: © ° INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET om-or0 To Plainitfa and Others Filing First Papers. Ifyou ae fing a fat paper (fr example, @ complaint) in a cl case, you must Compete ad fe, long wih yout fe paper the Cl Caso Cover Sheet contained on page + This infomation willbe used to comple Statees about te types and numbers of cases fled. You mt complete tems 1 trough 6 onthe sheet. In Ham 1, you must check tne box forthe case type hal best descibes bre case Ihe case ffs bath a general and a more spect pe af ase Iited in Kem Sheck te more specie one. the case has mule causes of acon, check the box hat best indicates the primary cause of action So ascit youn completing the sheet examples of the canes tal belong under each case ype in ier 1 ae provided below. A cover Sheet must be fled only wn your nal paper Folie to fle a cover sheet wiht frst paper fed n'a Cleave may subject a party. its counsel, or both fo sanctions under rues? 30 and 3220 of the Calflora Rules af Cour. To Parties in Rule 2.740 Collections Cases. A “colectons case" under rule 3740 is defined as an action for recovery of money {ned ina sum slated to be certain that snot more than $25,00, excite fntarest and attorney's fees, arising fom a rasecton in stich propery, sewices, or money was acquted on credit. A coletons case doesnot include an acton seeking the following: (1) ot damages, (2) puntive damages, (2) recovery of real propery, (4) recovery of pefsonal property, of (6) @ prejudgment wnt of Sitachment ‘The ientication of case as a fule 3.740 cofectons case on tis form means that wil be exert from the general {ime orservice requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant fle a responsive pladig, A rule 3,740 collections {ave wil be subjec tote requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in ule 3.740, To Parles in Complex Cases. In complex cases ony, paras must aio use the Civil Case Cover Shoot to designate whether the {ace complex I's pl beloves the case is complex under rule 3.40 ofthe California Rules of Cou, this must be inated by ampletng the appropriate boxes in tems ‘and 2. la pla designates a case as complex, te cover sheet must be served wih the emplanton al partes fo te acton. A detendant may fle and seve no later han the timo of is st appearance a jonder in the Giartfe ecigneon a counter designation tat he case not comple, or, the pli hes made no dsignaton, a designation fat scenes CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES auto Tor Contact, Frovisonally Gompox Ch Ligation (Ca. “Ao 22} Personal nuyropety rach of Conacterany 5) Rolo of Gov Rus 3400-240) Darton Death ‘each ofentitaase cnet rcs Retin (2) nnured Nols 0) (ha ‘tat ent cetier Contucin Seto (10) ued Mtr (6) (fin wr wtsgt onion) Sa ache ake Yon 4) caon cm asseer ContacereRy Sosa beter Seu tte Seite Cec tom i ot aud reer) Enovomentt one 0 eccant nega ico Contac imurre ava Cas Cte Papo (Personal ry ‘varerty {orang fom pvr compor na IPOD (ers te Seo Cntacivaraty Sati toed ace te yon amass a Colectons (eg. money oved pen Enforcement of dudgment, poste Colosten Caso Sober Pa creel of Judgment (tof iiatesieapeieen up Other Promissory Note/Collections County) cme cone of udgren on Insran Ebean (rt roviionaty Se ‘Se G8) site Scie sonant fete Sraeon atta Agony Awad Sher Coro far ays & Surgeons coer centacan elena oy Other Professional Health Care ‘Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes ‘Malpracicn ther Coniract Dispute ‘Other Enforcemert of Judgment Other PUPOMVD (23) Real Property a Premises Liability (0.9. Slip ‘Eminent Domain/inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint oi Conacrnaton (0) ico en near Badly unyP DAD orf veto 9) Ore Camas nt rates (e.g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Prof (e.g., quiet ttle) (26) peas tnventoel con of ‘itt Possesdon of Roa Property Declaratory Rate Ony ‘emotional Dsress Nogope Forcovure ne aressmen eaten uit tae an otra ores Gh Rey teria Meet and Non PUPDIND (Other Tort fers) comer Gui Compan? ‘Business TodvUnia Bushes Unlawtul Detain ‘on fowhor-comale) Practica (07 Commercial (31) IMiscolanoous Civil Petition cua oii, festa Pum and Coote fet een int ct rags (38) he case vovas gal ‘Governance (21) ren mr tent hohe oPaon rd Secied onto sande, ot) ‘apuco Commorea Pecos) eee 73) Suet Rovoe En Fraud (10 sce Fora (0) Worace Naurce Miles! Property (19) Seton sen hwo (1) ee otal Nogigone 25) ‘ot Mandate Mone ee Sh Mandamus ee ier Pekicolea Mapracice Viren on tinted Sout eee ‘oat medal ore) ‘setter Pein Ree on Ee ennai on Pies Tae wie Died Cout Case ‘Se ate con tata one i Potion Stet Emploment 1) at alt ies oe Nl Apes -abo ‘Censor pea eee CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET meats