Amended Complaint Filed No Fee

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 1, 2021

MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O 21 CV38 1 458 Santa Clara - Civil Randy H. McMurray, Esq. (SBN: 126888) Email: RMcMurray@laW-mh.com Yana Henriks, Esq. (SBN: 250638) Email: YHenriks@law-mh.com Lauren I. Freidenberg, Esq. (SBN: 312428) Email: LFreidenberg@laW-mh.com MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1640 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (323) 931-6200 Facsimile: (323) 931-9521 Attorneysfor Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/14/2021 3:20 PM Reviewed By: Y. Chavez Case #21 CV381458 Envelope: 6645278 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TORI D. MOSES, an individual, Plaintiff, V. HYATT CORPORATION, a Corporation; PALMETTO HOSPITALITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LLC D/B/A “HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW,” a Corporation; 0T0 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Corporation; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC, a Corporation; CKB INDUSTRIES C0,, LIMITED, a Corporation; DOES 1-100, inclusive; and MANUFACTURER DOES 1-100, inclusive. Defendants. Case N0.: 21CV381458 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: PREMISES LIABILITY; NEGLIGENCE; FAILURE T0 WARN; BREACH 0F IMPLIED WARRANTY; MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. PPP.‘ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 1 Y. CI“ PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL aveZ MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 \OOOQONUl-RUJNr-k NNNNNNNNNr-tr-r-tr-tr-Ar-Ar-tr-tr-tr-A OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUl-PUJNF-‘O Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES, hereby complains and alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiff TORI D. MOSES (herein “Plaintiff’) has suffered severe physical and emotional injuries as a result of Defendants” failure to maintain a safe premise for its patrons at Hyatt Centric Mountain View Hotel. Defendants failed t0 upkeep its hotel room glass showers, Which failed t0 comply with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) Federal mandates, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of foreseeable injury t0 consumers, including Plaintiff. As result 0f faulty installation, maintenance, and/or upkeep ofthe glass showers at Hyatt Centric Mountain View Hotel, Plaintiff was injured by the spontaneous explosion 0f glass, as depicted belowzz 2. Defendants, and each 0f them, have been 0n actual notice 0f its faulty glass showers since 2018-and nevertheless have failed to safeguard its guests, as evidenced in a similar incident that occurred on Defendants’ property in Newport Beach, depicted below3: 1 Defendants HYATT CORPORATION, Hyatt Centric Mountain View, OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC, MANUFACTURER DOES 1 through 100, and DOES through 100 are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants.” 2 The photos depict the scene of the incident, that occurred 0n August 7, 2020, which gives rise t0 Plaintiff’s action, resulting from the glass shower in her hotel room at the Hyatt Centric Mountain View having shattered and exploded onto Plaintiff, thereby causing severe bodily injuries and emotional distress, amongst other things. 3 Multiple news publications across the nation have reported an identical incident that took place in 20 1 8 at the Hyatt in Newport Beach, in Which a woman was severely injured when the glass shower door unexpectedly exploded and shattered onto the hotel guest, causing her t0 sustain severe bodily injuries and multiple stitches. Please refer to the 1 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL McMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 \OOOQONU‘I#UJNr-A NNNNNNNNNr-Ar-‘r-Ab-Ar-dr-ib-dr-Ab-Ab-d OONQM4>WNHO©OOQQUIJ>WNHO Newport Beach hotel's glass shower suddenly . . Newport Beach hotel's glass shower suddenly explodes, Injures woman explodes, injures woman By E‘Ieen Frere g”, Hy pwnrwm ‘ u w H JEAN WOT! ' I A a SHARE TWEEY EMAIL ExcLusn/E a URT WHEN SHOWER DOOR E EYEWWNESS NEWS l‘ h ‘ A XI .. ‘_ , . A n ryewmes; News rmusnay ahounne rmwng nmmmw w um .1 -. m m x mu ar a a m Beach mm sumemy expxoaea ana mlured m. 5 z 3 NEWPORT BEACH, Cahf. r Awunmn spoke exclusively to Eww‘mess News 'nuu-sdaynbout um 3. Despite mass media publication 0f the dangerous propensity 0f its incompliant glass showers within its premises, as well as CPSC consumer safety alert and Federal mandates on the installation of glass showers, Defendants, and each of them, have nevertheless inconspicuously failed t0 remedy such defect. As a result of Defendants breach, Plaintiff has sustained irreparable bodily injuries, emotional and mental anguish, permanent scars, as well as the need for ongoing medical treatment. II. JURISDICTION 4. Jurisdiction in this county and division in that the underlying acts and injuries upon Which the present action is based occurred in the County 0f Santa Clara, California. Moreover, jurisdiction is proper in that at all times relevant all defendants resided and/or transacted business in the County of Santa Clara. 5. Furthermore, the relief sought through this Complaint is within the jurisdiction 0f this Court because the damages are more than $25,000.00. III. VENUE 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395(a), in that defendants, and each 0f them, reside and/or transact business in the County of Santa Clara, State 0f California, and thus, are within the jurisdiction 0f this Court for following news publications that have reported this incident, dating back to 2018, as follows: https://abc7chicago.com/glass-shower-explodes-newnort-beach-hotel-door-hvatt-regencv-iohn-wavne- airport/4359595/; https://expressdigest.conl/voga-instructor-gets-30-stitches-after-a-glass-shower-explodes-in-her- hyatt-regency-hotel-room/; https://nvpost.com/20 1 8/09/28/Voga-teacher-bloodied-after-hotel-shower-door- explodes/ 2 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O purposes 0f service 0f process. IV. PARTIES: 7. Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES (hereinafter referred t0 as “Plaintiff’), is a resident and citizen 0f San Mateo, State 0f California. 8. Defendant, HYATT CORPORATION (herein individually “HYATT”), is a Corporation, registered to conduct business in the State of California as “HYATT” and/or “HYATT HOTEL.” At all times relevant hereto, Defendant HYATT owns, operates, manages, and/or franchises hotels, resorts, and lodging t0 consumers at large and across the nation, including within the State of California. 9. Defendant, PALMETTO HOSPITALITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LLC d/b/a “HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW” (herein referred to “HYATT CENTRIC”), is a Corporation, registered t0 conduct business in the State of California located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant HYATT CENTRIC, is a hotel brand of Defendant HYATT, that is in the business providing hotel and lodging, to consumers within the State 0f California. 10. Defendant, OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC (herein “OTO”), is a Corporation, registered to conduct business in the State of California. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant OTO is in the business of constructing, developing, as well as providing hotel operational management services t0 hotels across the nation. At all times relevant hereto, and upon information and belief, Defendant OTO, provided construction, development, and/or management services t0 Defendant HYATT CENTRIC. 11. Defendant, LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (herein “LUSARDI”), is a Corporation, registered to conduct business in the State of California. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant LUSARDI is in the business 0f constructing, designing, and developing hotel properties including hotel rooms. At all times relevant hereto, and upon information and belief, Defendant LUSARDI, is and was the general contractor, retained t0 construct, design, and develop the hotel rooms at the HYATT CENTRIC. 12. Defendant, SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC. (herein “SIMMONS”), is a 3 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O Corporation, registered to conduct business in the State of California. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant SIMMONS is in the business 0f constructing, designing, installing, and developing frameless showers to residential and commercial consumers Within the State 0f California. At all times relevant hereto, and upon information and belief, Defendant SIMMONS, is and was the sub- contractor, retained to construct, design, and develop the hotel room restrooms and/or showers at the HYATT CENTRIC. 13. Defendant CKB INDUSTRIES CO., LIMITED (herein “CKB”), is a China-based Corporation, which has at all times relevant hereto, engaged in the business 0f designing manufacturing, promoting, marketing, selling, and/or distributing glass doors, and is located at 2 Fenghuang Road, Torch High-Tech Industrial Development Zone, Zhongshan 528437, Guangdong China. 14. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate 0r otherwise of Defendants, MANUFACTURER DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, are presently unknown t0 Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs hereby sue such named Defendant by their fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each of the Defendants herein fictitiously named as a DOE, 0r MANUFACTURER DOE, is legally responsible, negligent or in some other actionable manner, liable for the events and happenings hereinafter referred, and therefore, proximately caused the injuries and damages t0 Plaintiff as herein alleged. Plaintiff Will seek leave 0f Court to amend this Complaint and state the true names and/or capacities 0f these fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained. 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, MANUFACTURER DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees and/or joint ventures of their co-defendants and, were, as such, acting Within the course, scope and authority 0f the agency, employment and/or venture, and that each and every Defendant, when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring ofeach and every other Defendant, as an agent, employee and/or joint ventures. 4 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O V. FACTS SHARED BY ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: 16. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 17. On or around August 7, 2020, Ms. Moses, a thirty-one (3 1) year 01d female, was a hotel guest at Defendant, HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW (herein “HYATT CENTRIC”), located at: 509 San Antonio Road, Mountain View, CA 94040, Tel: (650) 948-1234, (hereafter “Hyatt Centric”), owned and operated by Defendant, HYATT CORPORATION (herein “HYATT”). 18. Upon information and belief, developed, managed, and operated Defendant, OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC (herein “OTO”), provided construction, development, and/or management services t0 Defendant HYATT CENTRIC. 19. Plaintiff believes and further herein alleges that Defendant LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (herein “LUSARDI”), is and was the general contractor, retained t0 construct, design, and develop the hotel rooms at the HYATT CENTRIC. 20. Upon further information and belief, Defendant SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC. (herein “SIMMONS”), is and was the sub- contractor, retained to construct, design, and develop the hotel room restrooms and/or showers at the HYATT CENTRIC. 21. Upon further information and belief, Defendant CKB INDUSTRIES CO., LIMITED (herein “CKB”), is a China-based Corporation, Which has at all times relevant hereto, engaged in the business of designing manufacturing, promoting, marketing, selling, and/or distributing the glass doors that were installed at HYATT CENTRIC on the subj ect incident date. 22. On said day, Plaintiff, Who earns a living as a caregiver, was staying at HYATT CENTRIC, for an employment interview she had scheduled for that same week. Accordingly, at all times mentioned hereto, Plaintiff was a hotel guest and invitee at HYATT CENTRIC. 23. Upon checking into the hotel, Plaintiff was assigned to room number 338-With amenities that include a tempered glass shower, as depicted below4: 4 This photo depicts the layout 0f the hotel room guest restroom and tempered glass shower in the Hyatt Centric Hotel room in which Plaintiff was injured. 5 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 \OOOQONUl-RUJNr-k NNNNNNNNNHr-dr-tr-tr-Ap-Ar-tr-tr-tr-A OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUI-RUJNF-‘O 24. Shortly thereafter 0r around at 10:00 P.M., Plaintiff finished taking a shower. As Plaintiff slid the glass door of the tempered glass shower door, the glass shower door, unexpectedly and Without reason, exploded onto Plaintiff and shattered all over Plaintiff” body. The explosion of the glass door was so catastrophic and without warning, that it caused Plaintiff to fall to the ground, sustaining multiple lacerations and cuts t0 her wrists, hands, fingers, legs, and feet. Plaintiff, smothered in a sea afblood and glass, could not move Without further causing injury to herself. 25. Plaintiffwas unable to move and utilized the “Siri” function 0n her cellular device to call her “In Case 0f Emergency (“ICE”) contact. The ICE contact called the front desk of the Hyatt t0 obtain emergency medical services on behalf 0f Plaintiff. 26. While waiting for medical personnel t0 arrive, Plaintiff was profusely bleeding and had countless glassforeign bodies stuck to her body. 27. Upon arrival t0 the Hyatt, Paramedics went to Plaintiff” room. They began t0 perform emergency medical treatment to her as she laid injured 0n the floor of the restroom, buried in a sea of blood and shattered glass, as depicted belowsz 5 Depicted above is the shower glass that shattered and exploded onto Plaintiff, thereby injuring Plaintiff, while she was hotel guest at the Hyatt Centric 0n August 7, 2020. 6 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 \OOOQONUl-RUJNr-k NNNNNNNNNr-tr-r-tr-tr-Ar-Ar-tr-tr-tr-A OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUl-PUJNF-‘O 28. Paramedics determined that Plaintiff injuries necessitated further emergency treatment, and thus, transported Plaintiff by ambulance to Stanford Health Care - Emergency Department, located at: 300 Pasteur Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Upon arrival the Emergency Department at Stanford Health, Plaintiff was treated and evaluated for the injuries she sustained including, multiple lacerations t0 her left wrist and bilateral feet. 29. Doctors removed additional foreign glass bodies that were stuck onto Plaintiff body, X-rays were taken 0f Plaintiff” injuries, and as a result 0f the depth and length 0f the 7 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 \OOOQONUl-RUJNr-k NNNNNNNNNHt-dr-tr-tr-tr-kr-tr-tr-tr-A OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQQUI-RUJNF-‘O lacerations sustained t0 her left wrist and fingers, and right foot, multiple sutures were applied t0 remedy the injuries sustained, as depicted below6: 30. Plaintiff has since require multiple doctor’s appointments and/or consultations for suspected nerve damage, infection prevention, orthopedic consultation, and further evaluation as to the injuries sustained. Plaintiff sustained bodily injuries including permanent scars and complaints 0f tingling and numbness in her left hand and wrist-Which has impacted her mobility and strength to date. In addition and as a further result 0f the incident, Plaintiff was unable to resume back to work for approximately two (2) months and continues to be impacted physically 6 Depicted above is the are photos of Plaintiff’s injuries, sustained While she was hotel guest at the Hyatt Centric on August 7, 2020. immediately after the hotel glass shower exploded and shattered onto Plaintiff’s body, thereby causing bodily injuries, permanent scars, and nerve damages, amongst other injuries. 8 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O and emotionally to present date as a result of Defendants’ negligent maintenance, upkeep, and/or faulty installation 0f its hotel room glass showers. Plaintiff sustained severe bodily injuries, deliberating complications that have impacted her day-to-day life, and ongoing emotional distress due t0 the traumatic incident. Plaintiff has been and continues to be severely traumatized by the incident and continues to suffer from nightmares and flashbacks t0 glass shattering on her, that has resulted in an ongoing anxiety and mental anguish to present date. Plaintiff suffered and continues t0 suffer from emotional distress, depression, mental anguish, anxiety, embarrassment, and physical mutilation, all to Plaintiff” further detriment. VI. CAUSES OF ACTION: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PREMISES LIABILITY [Against Defendants, HYATT CORPORATION; PALMETTO HOSPITALITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LLC d/b/a “HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW;” OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive] 31. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 32. On 0r about August 7, 2020 the Defendants, HYATT CORPORATION, HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW, OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC., CKB, MANUFACTURER DOES 1 through 100, and DOES through 100 (hereinafter collectively referred t0 as “Defendants”), owned, operated, and/or maintained the HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW (hereafter “the Subject Premises”) premises located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040 in the State 0f California. 33. On 0r around August 7, 2020, Plaintiff was a hotel guest invitee at Defendant HYATT CENTRIC, the Subject Premises, located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040 in the State 0f California. 34. Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, were the owners 9 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O and/or operators 0f the Subject Premises, and at all times mentioned herein, in the business of providing hotel and hotel guest lodging services, to members 0f the general public, including Plaintiff. 35. Defendants, as the owners 0f the land, had a duty t0 exercise ordinary care in the management of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. 36. Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invitee, a non- delegable duty 0f care t0 maintain, upkeep, and inspect its premises in order t0 avoid unreasonable risk ofharm to its hotel guest patrons. 37. Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invitee, a non- delegable legal duty to make reasonable inspections 0f the Subject Premises, t0 discover dangerous conditions s0 as t0 protect Plaintiff from the dangerous conditions which caused Plaintiff” s injuries. 38. Defendants, and each 0fthem, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invitee, a duty to repair 0r remedy known dangerous conditions. 39. Defendants, and each 0fthem, as the owners and operators ofthe Subj ect Premises, were negligent in that, among other things, they failed to exercise due care in the ownership, construction, operation, and maintenance 0f the premises t0 ensure that its hotel guest invitees were not subj ect to any unreasonable risk ofharm When on the Subj ect Premises. 40. Defendants, and each 0f them, as the owner, maintainer, and/or manager of the Subject Premises, either individually 0r by and through its agents, servants and/or employees breached their duty by acting with less than reasonable care through the following careless and negligent acts and/or omissions: i. Improperly operated, managed, maintained and controlled its premises in failing to properly maintain its hotel room restrooms and showers 0n the Subject Premises s0 that they would be free from all hazards, including ensuring its tempered glass showers and glass shower doors possessed 0f “glazing materials” to its glass showers, as mandated by CPSC Federal Guidelines; ii. Failed to remedy and/or remove said showers and replace them With safer 10 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O alternative shower that does not require glass, 0n the Subject Premise, When Defendants knew 0r should have known in the exercise of ordinary care 0f the dangerous propensity for its incompliant glass showers t0 explode and shatter under normal use; iii. Failed t0 properly install and/or construct its glass showers and glass shower doors, in a manner so as t0 prevent injury to its hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff; iV. Failed to warn Plaintiff and other persons lawfully 0n said premises of the dangerous condition when Defendants knew 0r should have known in the exercise 0f ordinary care that said warning was necessary to prevent injury to Plaintiff; V. Failed t0 make a reasonable inspection 0f its premises when it knew 0r in the exercise of ordinary care should have known that said inspection was necessary t0 prevent injury t0 hotel guest invitees including, Plaintiff, and others lawfully 0n said premises; and Vi. Was otherwise careless and negligent in the operation of its premises. 41. By breaching their duty, Defendants, and each 0f them, unreasonably increased the risks ofbeing severely injured 0n the Subject Premises, by failing to take any action to protect against bodily injury that could occur to hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff, as a result of its incompliant tempered glass showers and glass shower sliding doors, exploding causing injuries to Plaintiff and other hotel guest invitees. 42. Defendants’ breach 0f their duty was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. 43. As a direct and proximate result 0f the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness and unlawfulness of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff sustained severe and disfiguring permanent bodily injuries and scars, loss 0f mobility, in addition t0 severe emotional and mental distress, resulting therefrom. 11 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O 44. As a direct and proximate result 0f one or more 0f the foregoing negligent acts 0r omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff suffers and continues to suffer from severe bodily injuries, which have impacted her ability t0 carry out her occupation as a caregiver but has also resulted in Plaintiff being clinically diagnosed as suffering from severe Post Thematic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), emotional distress, depression, mental anguish, anxiety, embarrassment, and physical mutilation, that persists to date, Which is and Will be hinder and prevent Plaintiff from attending t0 her usual duties and affairs 0f life, and has lost, and Will continue t0 lose in the future, lose value 0f that time, as aforementioned. 45. As a direct and proximate result 0f one or more of the foregoing negligent acts 0r omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff has been required t0 employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses and other professional services, and Plaintiff has been compelled t0 incur expenses for ambulance service, medicines, X-rays, and other medical supplies and services. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that further services 0f said nature Will be required by Plaintiff in an amount to be shown according to proof. 46. As a further and direct and proximate result of the aforesaid careless and negligent acts Plaintiff, then and there suffered great pain and anguish, both in mind and body and will in the future continue to suffer. Plaintiff further expended and will expend and become liable for large sums of money for medical care and services endeavoring to become healed and cured of said injuries. 47. Defendants committed the acts stated herein maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE [Against ALL Defendants; MANUFACTURER DOES 1-100, inclusive; and DOES 1-100] 48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 49. On or about August 7, 2020 the Defendants, HYATT CORPORATION, HYATT 12 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW, OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC., CKB, MANUFACTURER DOES 1 through 100, and DOES through 100 (hereinafter collectively referred t0 as “Defendants”), among other things, owned and operated and maintained the HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW (hereafter “the Subject Premises”) premises located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040 in the State of California. 50. On 0r around August 7, 2020, Plaintiff was a hotel guest invitee at Defendant HYATT CENTRIC, the Subject Premises, located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040 in the State 0f California. 51. Defendants, and each 0f them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invitee, a non- delegable duty 0f care to maintain, upkeep, and inspect its premises in order to ensure they are safe for use. 52. Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invitee, a non- delegable duty of care t0 properly train, retain, and supervise, its hotel staff and agents, including, its contractors and subcontractors, in order t0 protect against any foreseeable harm to its hotel guest invitees and patrons, including Plaintiff. 53. Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invitee, a non- delegable duty 0f care to ensure the safety of its rooms and its fixtures, so as to prevent foreseeable injuries t0 its hotel guest invitees and patrons, including Plaintiff. 54. Defendants, and each 0fthem, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invitee, a duty to repair 0r remedy known dangerous conditions, so as t0 prevent foreseeable injuries t0 its hotel guest invitees and patrons, including Plaintiff. 55. Defendants, and each of them, as the owner, maintainer, and/or manager of the Subject Premises, either individually or by and through its agents, servants and/or employees breached their duty by acting with less than reasonable care through the following careless and negligent acts and/or omissions: i. Improperly operated, managed, maintained and controlled its premises in failing to properly maintain its hotel room restrooms and showers 0n the Subject 13 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O ii. iii. iV. Vi. 56. Premises so that they would be free from all hazards, including ensuring its tempered glass showers and glass shower doors possessed 0f “glazing materials” to its glass showers, as mandated by CPSC Federal Guidelines; Failed to remedy and/or remove said showers and replace them With safer alternative shower that does not require glass, 0n the Subject Premise, When Defendants knew 0r should have known in the exercise 0f ordinary care 0f the dangerous propensity for its incompliant glass showers to explode and shatter under normal use; Failed t0 properly install and/or construct its glass showers and glass shower doors, in a manner so as t0 prevent injury t0 its hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff; Failed t0 warn Plaintiff and other persons lawfully 0n said premises 0f the dangerous condition when Defendants knew or should have known in the exercise 0f ordinary care that said warning was necessary to prevent injury to Plaintiff; Failed t0 make a reasonable inspection 0f its premises when it knew 0r in the exercise of ordinary care should have known that said inspection was necessary to prevent injury to hotel guest invitees including, Plaintiff, and others lawfully 0n said premises; Was otherwise careless and negligent in the operation 0f its premises; Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, are manufacturers, designers, developers, users, installers and/or otherwise, distributors of glass shower installations, including the Subj ect Glass Shower Door at the HYATT CENTRIC that injured Plaintiff. 57. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, as manufacturers, designers, developers, users, installers and/or otherwise, distributors 0f glass shower installations, including the Subj ect Glass Shower Door at the HYATT 14 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O CENTRIC, owed a duty to end-users, including Plaintiff t0 warn 0f any foreseeable 0r known defects With their Subj ect Glass Showers. 58. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, as manufacturers, designers, developers, users, installers and/or otherwise, distributors of glass shower installations, including the Subj ect Glass Shower Door at the HYATT CENTRIC, either individually or by and through its agents, servants and/or employees breached their duty by acting With less than reasonable care through the following careless and negligent acts and/or omissions: i. Failed t0 warn or provide warnings of the Subject Glass Door Shower t0 fail and explode-unexpectedly and without reason-during ordinary use of the Subject Glass Door Shower; ii. Failed to inspect 0r test the Subject Glass Door Shower t0 for foreseeable defects including its propensity t0 fail and explode-unexpectedly and Without reason-during ordinary use of the Subj ect Glass Door Shower; iii. Failed to design and/or fabricate its glass door showers in a manner that is safe and won’t fail and explode-unexpectedly and Without reason- during ordinary use, including ordinary use of the Subject Glass Door Shower; and iV. Failed to properly install and/or construct its glass door showers, in a manner so as to prevent injury to its hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff. 59. By breaching their duty, Defendants, and each 0f them, failed t0 take any action to protect against the foreseeable bodily injury that could occur to hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff, as a result of its incompliant tempered glass showers and glass shower sliding doors, exploding causing injuries t0 Plaintiff and other hotel guest invitees. 60. Defendants’ breach of their duty was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. 61. As a direct and proximate result 0f the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, 15 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O wantonness and unlawfulness 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, Plaintiff sustained severe and disfiguring permanent bodily injuries and scars, loss 0f mobility, in addition t0 severe emotional and mental distress, resulting therefrom. 62. As a direct and proximate result 0f one 0r more of the foregoing negligent acts or omissions 0f Defendants, Plaintiff suffers and continues to suffer from severe bodily injuries, Which have impacted her ability t0 carry out her occupation as a caregiver but has also resulted in Plaintiff being clinically diagnosed as suffering from severe Post Thematic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), emotional distress, depression, mental anguish, anxiety, embarrassment, and physical mutilation, that persists t0 date, Which is and Will be hinder and prevent Plaintiff from attending t0 her usual duties and affairs 0f life, and has lost, and will continue t0 lose in the future, lose value 0f that time, as aforementioned. 63. As a direct and proximate result 0f one 0r more 0f the foregoing negligent acts 0r omissions 0f Defendants, Plaintiff has been required to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses and other professional services, and Plaintiff has been compelled t0 incur expenses for ambulance service, medicines, X-rays, and other medical supplies and services. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that further services of said nature will be required by Plaintiff in an amount to be shown according to proof. 64. As a further and direct and proximate result of the aforesaid careless and negligent acts Plaintiff, then and there suffered great pain and anguish, both in mind and body and Will in the future continue to suffer. Plaintiff further expended and will expend and become liable for large sums 0f money for medical care and services endeavoring to become healed and cured 0f said injuries. 65. Defendants committed the acts stated herein maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention 0f injuring Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff t0 punitive damages. /// /// /// /// 16 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO WARN [Against Defendants, CKB INDUSTRIES CO., LIMITED; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC.; and MANUFACTURER DOES 1-100, inclusive; and DOES 1-100] 66. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 67. Defendant CKB is a manufacturer, distributer, designer, and creator of glass doors for use in showers and/or other purposes. Defendant CKB, at all times relevant hereto, are in the business 0f manufacturing, designing, engineering, constructing, distributing, assembling, inspecting, testing, warranting, marketing, promoting, advertising, distributing, and selling glass shower doors, to its customers and clients in the United States. 68. The subject glass doors manufactured, designed, tested, and inspected by Defendant CKB and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, contained a manufacturing defect when it left Defendant CKB’S possession and placed into the stream 0f commerce. 69. Defendants OTO, LUSARDI, and SIMMONS are developers, general contractors, and/or sub-contractors, that are in the business of designing, developing and designing hotel rooms and hotel room shower installations, including glass door showers at the HYATT CENTRIC, including the installed in Plaintiff’s hotel room, the Subject Glass Shower, that exploded and injured Plaintiff. 70. Defendants OTO, LUSARDI, and SIMMONS, market, advertise, promote, warrant, sell, and distribute, the subject glass shower door-designed and manufactured by Defendants CKB, bearing a manufacturing defect-into the stream 0f commerce by selling the glass shower doors t0 consumers and/or purchasers. 71. Upon information and belief, Defendants CKB and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, sold, marketed, and distributed glass doors, including the Subject Glass Door Shower, t0 Defendants, HYATT CENTRIC, OTO, LUSARDI, and SIMMONS, for use and/or installation 17 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O into hotel room showers, including the hotel room glass shower that injured Plaintiff. 72. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each 0f them, represent to its consumers and users, that its, Glass Doors for showers are extraordinarily safe for its intended use and of the highest quality. 73. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereby alleges that the Subject Glass Door Shower involved a substantial danger, including the propensity to unexpectedly and Without reason, explode and fail during ordinary use, thereby causing injury-including physical injury and scars-to end-users, including Plaintiff. 74. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each of them, as manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, and users 0f the Subject Glass Door Shower, had a duty to provide an adequate warning t0 its consumers and users, 0f the propensity the Subject Glass Door Shower, t0 fail and unexpectedly-and without reason- explode during ordinary use, since a reasonably foreseeable use 0f the product involved a substantial danger 0f Which Defendants were aware of, 0r should have been aware 0f, and such danger would not be readily recognized by the ordinary consumer and/or end-user. 75. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each of them, as manufactured, distributed, supplied, and/or used the Subject Glass Door Shower, with inadequate warnings, to the user, concerning the potential for the Subject Glass Door Shower t0 fail and unexpectedly-and without reason-explode during ordinary use, thereby causing injury to end-user consumers and invitees, including Plaintiff. 76. Defendants, CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each 0f them, as manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, and users 0f the Subj ect Glass Door Shower, failed to warn or instruct its end-users and/or consumers ofthe potential harm 0r injury posed t0 end-users if the end-user and/or consumer uses the Glass Shower to for its intended purpose. 77. Defendants OTO, LUSARDI, and SIMMONS, as developers, general contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, and/or installers of the Subject Glass Shower Door, failed to warn or instruct its consumers and/or potential end-users of the potential harm 0r injury posed by the 18 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O Subject Glass Shower Door, including its propensity to fail and explode during ordinary use- unexpectedly and Without reason-thereby causing injury to consumers and end-users, including Plaintiff. 78. The Subject Glass Shower Door, manufactured, designed, and/or distributed by CKB had a potential risk and/or harm in that among other things, in that it had the propensity to fail and explode during ordinary use-unexpectedly and Without reason- thereby causing physical injuries and scars to consumers and end-users, including Plaintiff. 79. The ordinary user, a hotel guest invitee, practice, would not have recognized 0r reasonably foreseen the potential harm and/or risk associated With ordinary use of Subject Glass Shower Door. 80. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each 0f them, as manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, and users of the Subj ect Glass Door Shower, knew 0r should have known 0f the danger, and knew 0r should have known that said danger would not be recognized by its consumers and/or end-users, but failed t0 give adequate warning 0f such danger. 81. As a direct and proximate result 0f the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness and unlawfulness 0f Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each of them, and the resulting failure during use, as aforesaid, Plaintiff sustained severe and serious injury to her person, including irreparable physical scars and injuries, all t0 Plaintiff s damage in a sum within the jurisdiction 0f this Court and to be shown according to proof. 82. As a further and proximate result of said conduct of Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each of them, Plaintiffwas compelled t0 incur expenses for ambulances, for services of hospitals, physicians, physical therapists, and other professional services, medicines, X-rays and other medical supplies and services. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that further services 0f said nature Will be required by Plaintiff for a yet to be determined period in the future, all t0 the damage of Plaintiff in an amount to be shown according to proof. 19 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O 83. In addition and by reason of the foregoing, and Plaintiff” s severe physical injuries, Plaintiffwas unable t0 engage in her employment for a period 0f time subsequent t0 said accident and has further been unable t0 perform physical bodily functions due t0 the nature 0fher injuries, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount t0 be shown according t0 proof. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS [Against CKB INDUSTRIES CO., LIMITED; 0T0 DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC.; and MANUFACTURER DOES 1-100, inclusive; and DOES 1-100] 84. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 85. Upon information and belief, Defendants, CKB and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, sold, marketed, and distributed glass doors, including the Subject Glass Door Shower, t0 Defendants, HYATT CENTRIC, OTO, LUSARDI, and SIMMONS, for use and/or installation into hotel room showers, including the hotel room glass shower that injured Plaintiff. 86. The ordinary user, a hotel guest invitee, practice, would not have recognized 0r reasonably foreseen the potential harm and/or risk associated with ordinary use of Subject Glass Shower Door. 87. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each of them, knew that said consumers and end-users, would be relying 0n their skill 0r judgment t0 furnish a Glass Shower Door that had the ability t0 meet their intended use, including the Subj ect Glass Shower Door within the HYATT CENTRIC. 88. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, impliedly warranted by the sales of the Subject Glass Door Shower, that it would be merchantable, meaning that it would be at least fit 0r suitable for the ordinary purpose for which it was t0 be used; and that it would at least conform t0 the promises or affirmations 0f fact made in its literature that it was safe for use during, among other procedures. 89. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS 20 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOOQONUI-hUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OOQONM-waHOKOOOQQMAmNt-O DOES 1-100, impliedly warranted that the Subject Glass Door Shower, was safe for its ordinary purpose 0f taking a shower and free from design defects including its propensity to fail and explode-unexpectedly and Without reason-during its ordinary use by end-users. 90. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, breached their implied warranty When they placed into the stream of commerce, the Subject Glass Door Shower that was, among other things, unfit and unsuitable for its intended use, and non-conforming to its literature’s claims 0fhighest safety standards, thereby resulting in Plaintiff to sustain severe physical injuries, scars, and emotional damages, amongst other things. 91. As a direct and proximate result 0f the breach, negligence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness and unlawfulness of Defendants, and each 0f them, and the resulting clip failure, as aforesaid, Plaintiff, sustained severe and serious injury to her person, all t0 Plaintiff’s damage in a sum within the jurisdiction 0f this Court and t0 be shown according t0 proof. 92. As a further and proximate result 0f said conduct 0f Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and MANUFACTURERS DOES 1-100, and each of them, Plaintiffwas compelled t0 incur expenses for ambulances, for services 0f hospitals, physicians, physical therapists, and other professional services, medicines, X-rays and other medical supplies and services. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that further services of said nature Will be required by Plaintiff for a yet t0 be determined period in the future, all t0 the damage 0f Plaintiff in an amount to be shown according to proof. 93. In addition and by reason of the foregoing, and Plaintiff” s severe physical injuries, Plaintiffwas unable to engage in her employment for a period oftime subsequent to said accident and has further been unable t0 perform physical bodily functions due to the nature of her injuries, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount t0 be shown according t0 proof. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, as follows: i. A judgment in favor 0f Plaintiffs, on all claims set forth herein; ii. For compensatory damages, including but not limited t0: back pay, plus 21 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 \OOOQONUl-RUJNr-k NNNNNNNNNr-tr-r-tr-tr-Ar-Ar-tr-tr-tr-A OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUl-PUJNF-‘O iii. iV. Vi. Vii. Viii. DATED: June 14, 2021 interest, lost fringe benefits and future lost learnings and fringe benefits, lost equity, damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering, according to proof allowed by law; For punitive damages allowed by law; For injunctive and/or declaratory relief; For restitution and/or disgorgement; For an award t0 Plaintiff of costs of suit incurred herein and reasonable attorneys’ fees; For an award ofprejudgment and post-judgment interest; and For an award t0 Plaintiff of such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP By: w Yana G. Henrflk Esq., Randy H. McMurray, Esq., Lauren I. Freidenberg, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES 22 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 \OOOQONUl-RUJNr-k NNNNNNNNNr-tr-r-tr-tr-Ar-Ar-tr-tr-tr-A OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUl-PUJNF-‘O VIII. DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. DATED: June 14, 2021 By: 23 FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP W Yana G. Henril<(s, Esq., Randy H. McMurray, Esq., Lauren I. Freidenberg, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL