Declaration In Support

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

lO ll l2 13 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV381458 Santa Clara - Civil Randy H. McMurray, Esq. (SBN: 126888) Email: RMcMurray@law-mh.com Yana Henriks, Esq. (SBN: 25063 8) Email: YHenriks@law-mh.com Khachatur Ayvazyan, Esq. (SBN 332650) Email: kayvazyan@law-mh.com MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 Wilshire BlVd., Suite 1640 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (323) 93 1 -6200 Facsimile: (323) 93 1 -9521 Attorneys for Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TORI D. MOSES, an individual, Plaintiff, HYATT CORPORATION, a Corporation; PALMETTO HOSPITALITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LLC D/B/A “HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW,” a Corporation; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Corporation; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC, a Corporation; CKB INDUSTRIES CO., LIMITED, a Corporation; DOES 1- 1 00, inclusive; and MANUFACTURER DOES 1-100, inclusive. Defendants. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 1 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 3/2/2022 2:45 PM Reviewed By: P. Hernandez Case #21 CV381458 Envelope: 8414172 Case N0.: 21CV381458 [Assigned for A11 Purposes t0 the Honorable Drew C. Takaichi, Department 2] DECLARATION YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TORI D. MOSES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: Time: Dept: 2 Trial Date: N0 Trial Date Set DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TORI D. MOSES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT P. Hernandez lO ll l2 13 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF YANA HENRIKS I, Yana Henriks, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted t0 practice before all courts in the State 0f California and a partner 0f McMurray Henriks, LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff TORI D. MOSES. I have personal knowledge 0f the facts set forth herein, except as t0 those stated 0n information and belief, and, as t0 those, I am informed and believe them t0 be true. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify t0 the matters stated herein. 2. I hereby give this declaration in support 0f Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave t0 File a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). “Clean” version 0f the proposed Third Amended Complaint is attached herewith as Exhibit 1. 3. Plaintiff intends t0 state additional facts and law in support 0fher claims. It was not until discovery commenced and through further investigation by Plaintiff that the true identity 0f an additional Defendant, that can be adequately served was discovered. Further inquiry revealed that Defendants, and each 0f them, are also responsible for the Violations 0f 16 Code ofFederaZ Regulations, Part 1201 et seq; and various California Building Codes given the facts and circumstances 0f the present case. These additional facts are very important for litigating this matter, and t0 assert each cause 0f action with more specificity. These facts were recently discovered based 0n research and investigation. 4. Plaintiff intends to join new Defendant CKB SHOWER DOORS LLC whose identity was not known t0 Plaintiff earlier. Plaintiff intends t0 add one new cause 0f action 0f “Products Liability,” which was not included in the Second Amended Complaint. 5. Defendants will not be prejudiced by granting leave to Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint because Defendants knew at the outset that based 0n the discovery 0f new and additional facts, additional causes 0f actions could be added. N0 trial date is set, and discovery is still ongoing. Further, the proposed amendments involve the same set 0f facts, which gives rise t0 the present action and Defendants, each 0f them, had notice thereof. 6. Good cause exists t0 grant Plaintiff’s motion t0 amend her complaint because the interests ofjustice favor that Plaintiff properly presents her case and for disputes t0 be resolved 0n 2 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TORI D. MOSES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT lO ll l2 13 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the merits. Plaintiffrequests that leave be granted t0 amend her complaint in furtherance ofjustice. The Third Amended Complaint will not delay the trial. N0 trial date is set; therefore, Defendants have ample time t0 complete discovery. 7. Further, the discovery process is ongoing, and the proposed amendments will not add t0 preparation costs because discovery is already tailored t0 the facts surrounding the incident during which Plaintiff” s injuries occurred. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n this 2nd day 0f March 20 2 iEWLos Angeles, California. fa" Yana Henriiis Declarant '2" 3 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TORI D. MOSES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT EXHIBIT 1 MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO Randy H. McMurray, Esq. (SBN: 126888) Email: RMcMurray@law-mh.com Yana Henriks, Esq. (SBN: 25063 8) Email: YHenriks@law-mh.com Khachatur Ayvazyan, Esq. (SBN 332650) Email: kayvazyan@law-mh.com MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 Wilshire BlVd., Suite 1640 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (323) 93 1 -6200 Facsimile: (323) 93 1 -9521 Attorneysfor Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TORI D. MOSES, an individual, Plaintiff, HYATT CORPORATION, a Corporation; PALMETTO HOSPITALITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LLC D/B/A “HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW,” a Corporation; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Corporation; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Corporation; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC, a Corporation; CKB INDUSTRIES CO., LIMITED, a Corporation; DOES 1-100, inclusive; and MANUFACTURER DOES 1-100, inclusive. Defendants. Case N0.: 21CV381458 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; 2. NEGLIGENCE and NEGLIGENCE PER SE; 3. PRODUCTS LIABILITY: i. COUNT 1: STRICT LIABILITY; ii. COUNT 2: MANUFACTURING DEFECT; iii. COUNT 3: DESIGN DEFECT; iv. COUNT 4: FAILURE T0 WARN; and v. COUNT 5: BREACH 0F IMPLIED WARRANTY 0F MERCHANTABILITY. [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] [UNLIMITED JURISDICTION] 1 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 L05 ANGELES, CA 90017 \DOONONUl-PUJNu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHb-Ab-Ab-Ar-Ab-Ap-Ab-A WNONM-PWNHooooflQm-PWNHO 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 their hotel room glass showers, which failed to comply with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) Federal mandates, thereby creating an unreasonable risk 0f foreseeable injury t0 consumers, including Plaintiff. As a result 0f faulty installation, maintenance, and/or upkeep 0f the glass showers at Hyatt Centric Mountain View Hotel, Plaintiffwas injured by the spontaneous explosion 0f glass, as depicted belowz: 1 Defendants HYATT CORPORATION, Hyatt Centric Mountain View, OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC., and DOES through 100 are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants.” 2 The photos depict the scene of the incident, that occurred on August 7, 2020, which gives rise to 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. 2 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 L05 ANGELES, CA 90017 OKOOONQUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHp-Ab-Ab-Ap-Ab-tp-Ab-A OONONKII-hUJNHOKDOONO‘NUlfibJNH 2. Defendants, and each 0f them, have been 0n actual notice of its faulty glass showers since 2018-and nevertheless have failed t0 safeguard its guests, as evidenced in a similar incident that occurred 0n Defendants’ property in Newport Beach, depicted below3: NewPort B-exh hOtells glass Shower SUddenly Newport Beach hotel's glass shower suddenly efpbdes' Injures woman explodes, injures woman a, BY Enveen Here By Eileen Frere mm, n. SHARE TWEET EMAIL 1m“; 1 4 ‘5, a . EXCLUSIVE I I - A :‘fium WHEN SHOWER noon EX- 'nj; EYEWITNéss News EHBED ke e Ely to Eyethness News Thursday about the temfymg moment when a shower door at a Newport d XCILISKV Beach hotel suddenly exploded and Imure her. NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. -- A woman spoke exclusively to Eyewitness News Thursday about the 3. Defendants, and each 0f them, had notice of the Shower Glass Door Explosion incident 0f 2018 in Newport Beach because: 1) That incident happened in a Hyatt Hotel; 2) A11 Hyatt Hotels are managed and controlled by their corporate headquarters located in Chicago, IL; 3) The 2018 incident in Newport Beach was reported t0 the Hyatt corporate headquarters in Chicago, IL. Therefore, Defendants had actual and constructive notice 0f the occurrence 0f similar accidents in the past, and they had notice 0f the dangerous condition. 4. 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 0n the installation 0f glass showers, Defendants, and each 0f 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. 3 Multiple news publications across the nation have reported an identical incident that took place in 2018 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 following news publications that have reported this incident, dating back to 2018, as follows: https://abc7Chicago.com/glass-shower-exp10des-newport-beach-hotel-door-hvatt-regencv-i0hn-wavne- airport/4359595/; https://expressdigest.com/Voga-instructor-gets-30-stitches-after-a-glass-shower-explodes-in-her- hvatt-regencv-hotel-room/; https://nvpost.com/20 1 8/09/28/Voga-teacher-bloodied-after-hotel-shower-door- explodes/ 3 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO II. JURISDICTION 5 . 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 0f Santa Clara. 6. Furthermore, the relief sought through this Complaint is within the jurisdiction of this Court because the damages are more than $25,000.00. III. VENUE 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district, pursuant t0 California Code 0f Civil Procedure §395(a), in that defendants, and each 0f them, reside and/or transact business in the County 0f Santa Clara, State 0f California, and thus, are within the jurisdiction 0f this Court for purposes 0f service 0f process. IV. PARTIES 8. Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES (hereinafter referred t0 as “Plaintiff”), is a resident and citizen 0f San Mateo, State 0f California. 9. Defendant, HYATT CORPORATION (herein individually “HYATT”), is a Corporation, registered t0 conduct business in the State 0f 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 0f California. 10. 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 0f California located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant HYATT CENTRIC, is a hotel brand 0f Defendant HYATT, that is in the business 0f providing hotel and lodging, t0 4 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO consumers within the State 0f California. 11. Defendant, OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC (herein “OTO”), is a Corporation, registered t0 conduct business in the State 0f California. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant OTO is in the business 0f 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. 12. Defendant, LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (herein “LUSARDI”), is a Corporation, registered t0 conduct business in the State 0f 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. 13. Defendant, SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC. (herein “SIMMONS”), is a Corporation, registered t0 conduct business in the State 0f California. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant SIMMONS is in the business 0f constructing, designing, installing, and developing frameless showers t0 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 t0 construct, design, and develop the hotel room restrooms and/or showers at the HYATT CENTRIC. 14. 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. 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that defendant CKB SHOWER DOORS LLC (hereinafter “CKB LLC”), is a California Limited Liability Company, and is registered with the California Secretary 0f State (Registration N0. 201920410378). CKB 5 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNb-tt-tt-tt-tt-th-tt-tt-tt-tt-t OONONUl-PUJNHOKDOONO‘xUl-PUJNHO LLC has a website URL: http://www.ckbusa.com/. CKB is the parent company ofCKB LLC. 16. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate 0r otherwise 0f Defendants, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each 0f 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 0f the Defendants herein fictitiously named as a DOE, is legally responsible, negligent 0r 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 t0 amend this Complaint and state the true names and/or capacities 0f these fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained. 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each 0f them, were the agents, servants, employees and/or joint ventures 0f 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 of each and every other Defendant, as an agent, employee and/or joint ventures. V. FACTS SHARED BY ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 19. On 0r around August 7, 2020, Ms. Moses, a thirty-one (3 1) year 01d female, was a hotel guest at defendant HYATT CENTRIC’S hotel located at: 409 San Antonio Road, Mountain View CA 94040, Tel: (650) 948-1234, which is owned and operated by defendant HYATT. 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that defendant OTO provided construction, development, and/or management services t0 Defendant HYATT CENTRIC. 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that defendant LUSARDI, is and was the general contractor, retained t0 construct, design, and develop the hotel rooms at 6 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 L05 ANGELES, CA 90017 \DOONONUl-PUJNu-t NNNNNNNNNHHp-tp-tu-b-tt-b-tt-tt-t OONONUl-PUJNHOKDOONONUl-PUJNHO the HYATT CENTRIC. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that defendant SIMMONS is and was the sub-contractor, retained t0 construct, design, and develop the hotel room restrooms and/or showers at the HYATT CENTRIC. 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that defendant CKB is a China-based Corporation, which has at all times relevant hereto, engaged in the business 0f designing manufacturing, promoting, designing, marketing, selling, and/or distributing the glass doors that were installed at HYATT CENTRIC 0n the subj ect incident date. 24. 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, Plaintiffwas a hotel guest and invites at HYATT CENTRIC. 25. Upon checking into the hotel, Plaintiff was assigned t0 room number 338-with amenities that include a tempered glass shower, as depicted below4: 26. Shortly thereafter 0r around 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, 4 This photo depicts the layout of the hotel room guest restroom and tempered glass shower in the Hyatt Centric Hotel room in which Plaintiff was injured. 7 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 L05 ANGELES, CA 90017 \DOONONUl-PUJNu-t NNNNNNNNNHHp-tp-tu-b-tt-b-tt-tt-t OONGUl-PWNHOKDOONONUl-PUJNHO unexpectedly and without reason, exploded onto Plaintiff and shattered all over Plaintiff” s body. The explosion of the glass door was so catastrophic and without warning, that it caused Plaintiff t0 fall t0 the ground, sustaining multiple lacerations and cuts t0 her wrists, hands, fingers, legs, and feet. Plaintiff, smothered in a sea ofblood andglass, could not move without further causing injury t0 herself. 27. Plaintiffwas unable t0 move and utilized the “Siri” function 0n her cellular device t0 call her “In Case ofEmergency (“ICE”) contact.” The ICE contact called the front desk of the Hyatt t0 obtain emergency medical services on behalf of Plaintiff. 28. While waiting for medical personnel t0 arrive, Plaintiff was profusely bleeding and had countless glassforeign bodies stuck t0 her body. 29. Upon arrival at the HYATT CENTRIC, Paramedics went t0 Plaintiff” s room. They began t0 perform emergency medical treatment 0n her as she lay injured on the floor 0f the restroom, buried in a sea 0f blood and shattered glass, as depicted below5: w 7 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 on August 7, 2020. 8 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 L05 ANGELES, CA 90017 \DOONONUl-PUJNu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHp-tu-th-Hb-tt-tt-t OONGUl-PUJNHOKDOOQONUl-hUJNHO 30. Paramedics determined that Plaintiff’s injuries necessitated further emergency treatment, and thus, transported Plaintiff by ambulance t0 Stanford Health Care - Emergency Department, located at: 300 Pasteur Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Upon arrival at 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. 31. Doctors removed additional foreign glass bodies that were stuck onto Plaintiff’s body, X-rays were taken 0f Plaintiffs injuries, and as a result 0f the depth and length 0f the lacerations sustained t0 her left wrist and fingers, and right foot, multiple sutures were applied to remedy the injuries sustained, as depicted below6: 6 Depicted above is the are photos 0f Plaintiff’s injuries, sustained while she was hotel guest at the Hyatt Centric 0n 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. 9 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 L05 ANGELES, CA 90017 \OOONONUI-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHp-Ab-Ab-Ab-Ap-Ab-tp-Ab-A OONONLII-hUJNHO000flO‘NUl-PUJNHO 32. Plaintiff has since required 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 t0 work for approximately two (2) months and continues to be impacted physically and emotionally t0 the present date as a result 0f 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 t0 be severely traumatized by the incident and continues to suffer from nightmares and flashbacks to glass shattering 0n her, Which has resulted in ongoing anxiety and mental anguish t0 the present date. Plaintiff suffered and continues t0 suffer from emotional distress, depression, mental anguish, anxiety, embarrassment, and physical mutilation, all t0 Plaintiff” s further detriment. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges that Defendants, and each 0fthem, have violated the Federal Law concerning the use 0f safety tempered laminated glass and/or covering the tempered glass with a safety film. 16 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 1201 et seq. concerns the safety standards for bathtub doors and shower doors. In addition, the 10 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 \DOONONUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNb-tt-tt-tt-tt-th-tt-tt-tt-tt-t OONO‘xUl-PUJNHOKOOONO‘xUl-PUJNHO United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) has issued Tempered Glass Safety Alert 0n its website (URL: https://cpsc-d8-media-pr0d.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs- public/l801-Tempered-Glass-Safetv-Alertpdf) that there is a mandatory federal safety standard for glass in shower and bathtub enclosures, doors, storm doors, and glass sliding doors. Numerous incidents concerning shower door explosions have been reported t0 CPSC. From 2012 through 2016, there were an estimated 2,300 U.S. Emergency department Visits associated with shattering glass shower doors. Defendants and their building contractors, construction workers, maintenance staff, etc., were fully aware and had knowledge 0f the safety hazard related t0 exploding shower door glass. 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges that the expense t0 Defendants for installing safety glass was very negligible and minimal as compared t0 the serious injuries suffered by Plaintiff. Defendants’ profit-driven motive t0 use dangerous, cheap, substandard, and dangerous material is highly egregious, oppressive, wanton, malicious, and willful, thus warranting punitive damages. 35. Defendants, and each of them, are responsible for the injuries t0 Plaintiffpursuant t0 California Civil Code §1714, for willful acts for failing t0 comply With the safety requirement under 16 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 1201 et seq., and for failing to exercise ordinary care. In addition, Defendants knew, should have known, 0r had adequate notice based 0n numerous incidents 0f exploding shower doors; and the hazard 0f unsafe shower doors when such doors d0 not comply with the requirements 0f 16 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 1201 et seq. 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, did not comply with the safety requirements 0f California Building Code (“CBC”) 24 §2401, et seq. The shower door installed at HYATT CENTRIC, which caused injuries t0 Plaintiff, was in total Violation 0fthe California Building Code 24 §240 1 , et seq. Safety Glazing (CBC §2406) was not complied with. The panels and their support system were not designed t0 Withstand the loads specified in CBC §1607.8. In addition, the glazing 0f the shower, and the bottom edge ofthe glazing was less than 60 inches measured vertically above any standing 0r walking surface and was thus considered a hazardous location pursuant t0 CBC §2406.4.5. 11 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO There was glazing in guards and railings ofthe shower atHYATT CENTRIC, which is considered a hazardous location (see CBC §2406.4.4). 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges that Defendant CKB LLC has a website URL: http://www.ckbusa.com/. On its website, it states as follows:M As a Canadian invested factory, CKB is a leading Bay Area manufacturer and distributor 0f shower doors, shower enclosures, shower bases and shower related products. We have achieved accolades and certifications within residential marketplaces for off-the-shelf shower door solutions with innovative modern style and exceptional value. CKB also provides quality acrylic shower bases t0 complement our shower doors. CKB is dedicated t0 deliver excellence and value shower doors and related products. We are passionate about Visionary, modern and user-friendly design. Our mission is t0 provide luxury yet affordable bathroom solutions for any residential proj ect. We strive t0 ensure overall quality and customer satisfaction for every shower production. Partner with us for your next shower door 0r bathroom renovation project. Contact Us Address : 235 11 Bernhardt St Unit B,Hayward, CA 94545 Email : info@ckbusa.com Call : 510-432-0361 Fax : 5 10-400-9884 38. On its website, CBK LLC advertises various products, which include, Shower Doors, Bathtub Doors, Shower Enclosures, and Shower Bases. Each 0fthese products has various different models/specifications. Most notably, none 0f these products have laminated glass and/or a safety film applied t0 any 0f the model shower door glasses. 39. 16 Code 0f Federal Regulations §1201 .2(13) states: “Laminated glass means glazing material composed 0ftwo 0r more pieces 0f glass, each piece being either tempered glass, heat strengthened glass, annealed glass 0r wired glass, bonded t0 an intervening layer 0r layers 0f resilient plastic material.” 40. 16 Code ofFederal Regulations §1201 .1 provides in pertinent part: 12 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO (a) Scope. This part 1201, a consumer product safety standard, prescribes the safety requirements for glazing materials used 0r intended for use in any 0f the following architectural products: (1) Storm doors 0r combination doors. (2) Doors. (3) Bathtub doors and enclosures. (4) Shower doors and enclosures. (5) [Reserved] (6) Sliding glass doors (patio-type). It also requires that these architectural products which incorporate glazing materials be constructed with glazing materials that meet the requirements 0f this part. The safety requirements are designed t0 reduce 0r eliminate unreasonable risks 0f death 0r serious injury t0 consumers When glazing material is broken by human contact. 41. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that the glass provided by CKB LLC did not pass the safety test pursuant t0 §1201.4 0f 16 Code ofFederal Regulations. 42. Plaintiff is further informed that it was a design defect t0 install tempered glass rather than laminated glass in the bathroom 0f the HOTEL ROOM. Laminated glass is a type 0f safety glass that holds together when shattered. Whereas, tempered glass when shattered forms many small bits, which can cause serious injury t0 the human body, especially when naked. The explosion can cause shrapnel 0f glass hitting the body with speed t0 cause cuts and lacerations 0n the naked skin during a shower. 43. CBK LLC does not manufacture any laminated glass products. It only has tempered glass shower doors. 44. “Safety Film” refers t0 are polyester, 0r PET films that are applied t0 glass and glazing in order to hold them together if the glass is shattered (similar t0 laminated glass). The main difference between film and laminated glass is that these Shatter Safe films can be applied t0 the glass 0r glazing after manufacture 0r installation, i.e., it is a retrofit product. These films are used widely all over the world; they can be found 0n trains, buses, cars, and buildings. 45. Defendants, and each 0f them, failed t0 apply a Safety Film 0n the bathroom shower door 0f the HOTEL ROOM, which could have prevented the injuries t0 Plaintiff due t0 the sharp bits 0f shattered glass. 46. The glass manufactured/supplied by CBK LLC had a manufacturing defect and 13 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONO‘NUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNb-tt-tt-tt-tt-th-tr-tt-tt-tt-t OONO‘xUl-PUJNHOKDOONO‘xUl-PUJNHO design defect. Typically, When a perfectly manufactured tempered glass is broken, the glass breaks into small rounded chunks as opposed t0 sharp jagged shards, which is not likely to cause injury. This type 0f manufacturing defect is caused due t0 reduced surface compressive stress during manufacturing. But for the manufacturing defect, the glass would have broken into small rounded chunks and prevented injury t0 Plaintiff. 47. Defendant HYATT is the parent organization 0f defendant HYATT CENTRIC. HYATT’S headquarters is located at 150 N. Riverside Plaza, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606. HYATT has a website URL: https://www.hvatt.com/. On its website, HYATT invites bookings and reservations t0 its various hotel locations, including for HYATT CENTRIC and Hyatt Regency John Wayne Airport, 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92660. A similar incident occurred in the Newport Beach Hyatt hotel in September 2018. 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that HYATT headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area 0fChicago manages and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation properties worldwide. Hyatt has more than 1100 hotels and a11- inclusive properties in 69 countries across six continents. 49. Plaintiff is further informed that HYATT has a privacy policy for guests, which is posted on its website URL: https://www.hvatt.com/en-US/info/privacv-policv-global. The privacy policy states in pertinent part as follows: Information We MaV Collect We collect and process your personal information in order t0 provide you the best experience possible when you interact with us. How We Use Your Information Provide for the safety and security 0f staff, guests and other Visitors. 50. HYATT has a system in place where it obtains all information of all guests in any 0f its 1100 locations worldwide. A11 the information is collected, received, and stored at its headquarters in Chicago, IL. Thus, if any guest is seriously injured, all information will be received at its headquarters in Chicago, IL. Subsequently, consistent with HYATT’s privacy policy for guests, Defendants and each 0f them, would be notified 0f the same, which would include the Newport Beach incident in 20 1 8. 14 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO 5 1. Defendants, and each 0f them, knew 0r should have known that the recommendations 0f the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission concerning the use 0f Laminated Glass and use 0f Safety Films 0n bathroom shower doors. In addition, Defendants did not comply with the Federal and California Building codes. Each Defendant was either responsible for installing the dangerous product 0n their premises 0r willfully installed dangerous products with a profit-driven motive in cutting costs by installing spurious products that were dangerous, specifically for not using the tempered glass which breaks into small rounded chunks as opposed t0 sharp jagged shards. A simple test would have revealed the glass used in the HOTEL ROOM, in fact, breaks into sharp jagged shards. 52. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges that Defendants’ conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, egregious, and/or grossly negligent. Defendants, and each 0fthem, knew 0r should have known that only laminated glass 0r glass with a safety film was considered safe. Defendants failed t0 perform a safety test. Defendants failed t0 comply with the Federal and California Building Codes. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered serious physical and emotional injuries, thus warranting punitive damages. 53. As a result 0f the foregoing, acts and omissions 0f all Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100, and its employees, agents, contractors, Plaintiff has and continues t0 necessitate ongoing medical care and treatment, and thus, has incurred economic damages, including medical expenses, that continue t0 date, all due t0 willful, wanton, egregious, malicious, negligent and reckless acts and omissions 0f Defendants, and its employees, agents, and contractors. 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] 15 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO 54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 55. 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, CKB LLC, and DOES through 100 (hereinafter collectively referred t0 as “Defendants”), owned, operated, and/or maintained the HYATT CENTRIC MOUNTAIN VIEW (hereafter “the Subj ect Premises”) premises located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040 in the State 0f California. 56. On 0r around August 7, 2020, Plaintiff was a hotel guest invites at Defendant HYATT CENTRIC, the Subject Premises, located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040 in the State 0f California. 57. Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each 0f them, were the owners and/or operators 0f the Subject Premises, and at all times mentioned herein, in the business 0f providing hotel and hotel guest lodging services, t0 members 0f the general public, including Plaintiff. 58. Defendants, as the owners 0f the land, had a duty t0 exercise ordinary care in the management 0f the premises t0 avoid exposing persons t0 an unreasonable risk 0f harm. 59. Defendants, and each 0f them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invites, a non- delegable duty 0f care t0 maintain, upkeep, and inspect its premises in order t0 avoid unreasonable risk ofharm t0 its hotel guest patrons. 60. Defendants, and each 0f them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invites, a non- delegable legal duty t0 make reasonable inspections 0f the Subject Premises, t0 discover dangerous conditions so as t0 protect Plaintiff from the dangerous conditions which caused Plaintiff” s injuries. 61. Defendants, and each 0fthem, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invites, a duty t0 repair 0r remedy known dangerous conditions. 62. Defendants, and each 0fthem, as the owners and operators 0fthe Subj ect Premises, were negligent in that, among other things, they failed t0 exercise due care in the ownership, 16 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO construction, operation, and maintenance 0f the premises t0 ensure that its hotel guest invitees were not subj ect t0 any unreasonable risk 0fharm when 0n the Subj ect Premises. 63. Defendants, and each 0f them, as the owner, maintainer, and/or manager 0f 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. ii. iii. iV. Improperly operated, managed, maintained and controlled its premises in failing to properly maintain its hotel room restrooms and showers 0n the Subject Premises so that they would be free from all hazards, including ensuring its tempered glass showers and glass shower doors possessed 0f “glazing materials” t0 its glass showers, as mandated by CPSC Federal Guidelines; Failed t0 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 t0 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 0r should have known in the exercise 0f ordinary care that said warning was necessary t0 prevent injury t0 Plaintiff; Failed t0 make a reasonable inspection 0f its premises when it knew 0r in the exercise 0f 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 17 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO Vi. Was otherwise careless and negligent in the operation 0f its premises. 64. By breaching their duty, Defendants, and each 0f them, unreasonably increased the risks 0fbeing severely injured 0n the Subj ect Premises, by failing t0 take any action t0 protect against bodily injury that could occur t0 hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff, as a result 0f its incompliant tempered glass showers and glass shower sliding doors, exploding causing injuries to Plaintiff and other hotel guest invitees. 65. Defendants’ breach 0f their duty was a substantial factor in causing harm t0 Plaintiff. 66. As a direct and proximate result 0f the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, 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. 67. As a direct and proximate result 0f one 0r more 0f the foregoing negligent acts 0r omissions 0f Defendants, Plaintiff suffers and continues t0 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. 68. As a direct and proximate result 0f one 0r more 0f the foregoing negligent acts 0r omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff has been required t0 employ the services 0f 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 t0 be shown according t0 proof. 69. As a further and direct and proximate result 0f the aforesaid careless and negligent acts Plaintiff, then and there suffered great pain and anguish, both in mind and body and will in 18 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO the future continue t0 suffer. Plaintiff further expended and will expend and become liable for large sums 0f money for medical care and services endeavoring t0 become healed and cured 0f said injuries. 70. Defendants, pursuant t0 California Civil Code §1714, committed the acts stated herein maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff t0 punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE and NEGLIGENCE PER SE [Against ALL Defendants, and DOES 1-100, inclusive] 71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 72. 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, CKB LLC, and DOES 1 through 100 (hereinafter collectively referred t0 as “Defendants”), among other things, 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. 73. On 0r around August 7, 2020, Plaintiff was a hotel guest invites at Defendant HYATT CENTRIC, the Subject Premises, located at: 409 San Antonio Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040 in the State 0f California. 74. Defendants, and each 0f them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invites, a non- delegable duty 0f care t0 maintain, upkeep, and inspect its premises in order t0 ensure they are safe for use. 75. Defendants, and each 0f them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invites, a non- delegable duty 0f 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 t0 its hotel guest invitees and patrons, including Plaintiff. 19 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO 76. Defendants, and each 0f them, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invites, a non- delegable duty 0f care t0 ensure the safety 0f its rooms and its fixtures, so as t0 prevent foreseeable injuries t0 its hotel guest invitees and patrons, including Plaintiff. 77. Defendants, and each 0fthem, owed Plaintiff, a hotel guest invites, a duty t0 repair 0r remedy known dangerous conditions, so as t0 prevent foreseeable injuries t0 its hotel guest invitees and patrons, including Plaintiff. 78. Defendants, and each 0f them, as the owner, maintainer, and/or manager 0f 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 so that they would be free from all hazards, including ensuring its tempered glass showers and glass shower doors possessed 0f “glazing materials” t0 its glass showers, as mandated by CPSC Federal Guidelines; ii. Failed t0 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 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 t0 its hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff; iV. Failed t0 warn Plaintiff and other persons lawfully 0n said premises 0f the dangerous condition when Defendants knew 0r should have known in the exercise 0f ordinary care that said warning was necessary t0 prevent injury t0 Plaintiff; 20 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO V. Failed t0 make a reasonable inspection 0f its premises when it knew 0r in the exercise 0f 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; Vi. Was otherwise careless and negligent in the operation 0f its premises; 79. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and CKB LLC, are manufacturers, designers, developers, users, installers and/or otherwise, distributors 0f glass shower installations, including the Subject Glass Shower Door at the HYATT CENTRIC that injured Plaintiff. 80. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and CKB LLC, as manufacturers, designers, developers, users, installers and/or otherwise, distributors 0f glass shower installations, including the Subject Glass Shower Door at the HYATT CENTRIC, owed a duty t0 end-users, including Plaintiff t0 warn 0f any foreseeable 0r known defects with their Subject Glass Showers. 81. Defendants CKB, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and CKB LLC, as manufacturers, designers, developers, users, installers and/or otherwise, distributors 0f glass shower installations, including the Subject Glass Shower Door at the HYATT CENTRIC, 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. Failed t0 warn 0r provide warnings 0f the Subject Glass Door Shower t0 fail and explode-unexpectedly and without reason-during ordinary use 0f the Subj ect Glass Door Shower; ii. Failed t0 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 0f the Subj ect Glass Door Shower; iii. Failed t0 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 0f the Subject Glass Door 21 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO Shower; and iV. Failed t0 properly install and/or construct its glass door showers, in a manner so as t0 prevent injury t0 its hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff. 82. By breaching their duty, Defendants, and each 0f them, failed t0 take any action t0 protect against the foreseeable bodily injury that could occur t0 hotel guest invitees, including Plaintiff, as a result 0f its incompliant tempered glass showers and glass shower sliding doors, exploding causing injuries t0 Plaintiff and other hotel guest invitees. 83. Defendants’ breach 0f their duty was a substantial factor in causing harm t0 Plaintiff. 84. Defendants, and each 0f them, are NEGLIGENT PER SE, for Violations of 16 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 1201 ez‘ seq.; California Building Code (“CBC”) 24 §2401, et seq.; and California Civil Code §1714. 85. As a direct and proximate result 0f the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, 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. 86. As a direct and proximate result 0f one 0r more 0f the foregoing negligent acts 0r omissions 0f Defendants, Plaintiff suffers and continues t0 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. 87. As a direct and proximate result 0f one 0r more 0f the foregoing negligent acts 0r omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff has been required t0 employ the services 0f hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses and other professional services, and Plaintiff has been compelled t0 22 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO 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 t0 be shown according t0 proof. 88. As a further and direct and proximate result 0f the aforesaid careless and negligent acts, Plaintiff, suffered great pain and anguish, both in mind and body, and will in the future continue t0 suffer. Plaintiff further expended and will expend and become liable for large sums 0fmoney for medical care and services endeavoring t0 become healed and cured 0f said injuries. 89. Defendants committed the acts stated herein maliciously and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff t0 punitive damages. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION PRODUCTS LIABILITY COUNT 1: STRICT LIABILITY [Against Defendants, CKB; CKB LLC; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC.; and DOES 1-100] 90. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 91. Defendants CKB; CKB LLC; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC, and each 0f them was responsible for manufacturing, designing, distributing, supplying, shipping, testing, installing, repairing, servicing and/or maintenance 0f the shower glass door in the HOTEL ROOM. 92. The said shower glass contained manufacturing and/or design defect. In that, generally, a glass upon breaking will split into small rounded chunks as opposed t0 sharp jagged shards. The manufacturing 0r design defect could have been easily detected by a simple test by Defendants. The defect could have been discovered either immediately after the glass was manufactured, 0r prior t0 its installation. The defect could be discovered by Visual inspection; by use 0f instruments/gadgets; and/or by testing. 93. Plaintiff” s use 0fthe product was not unreasonable and was very much foreseeable. 94. Defendants failed t0 give adequate warning t0 Plaintiff, 0r t0 any person who was 23 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO similarly situated as Plaintiff. A label 0n the glass door, such as “fragile material, handle with care,” would have alerted Plaintiff t0 keep a safe distance from the glass door. 95. Defendants have a duty t0 make and supply products that are safe in their reasonable use, and not dangerous. Defendants breached the duty 0f manufacturing, designing, distributing, supplying, shipping, installing, repairing, servicing and/or maintenance 0f product that was dangerous. As a result, due t0 Defendants’ actions, 0r failure t0 act, Plaintiffhas suffered injuries. 96. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the actions 0f Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and emotional injuries which have caused Plaintiff t0 sustain severe, serious, and permanent injuries t0 his person, loss 0f income, medical expenses, all t0 her damage in a sum t0 be shown according t0 proof and within the jurisdiction 0f the Superior Court. 97. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, was egregious, oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, and undertaken with complete disregard for Plaintiff‘s safety, entitling Plaintiff t0 actual, punitive, and exemplary damages according t0 proof at trial. COUNT 2: MANUFACTURING DEFECT [Against Defendants, CKB; CKB LLC; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC.; and DOES 1-100] 98. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 99. Defendants CKB; CKB LLC; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC, and each 0f them was responsible for manufacturing, distributing, supplying, installing, repairing, servicing and/or maintenance 0f the shower glass door in the HOTEL ROOM. 100. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereupon alleges, that glass that was manufactured by CKB and/or CKB LLC was in itself defective because the glass upon breaking, split into sharp jagged shards. The defect could have been easily discovered after the glass was manufactured, by Visual inspection, specific instruments/gadgets, 0r tests. Defendants failed t0 24 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO carry out the inspections and tests. 101. The glass installed in the HOTEL ROOM was unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiff did not use the glass in an unreasonable manner, and Plaintiff” s use 0fthe product was foreseeable. 102. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the actions 0f Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and emotional injuries which have caused Plaintiff t0 sustain severe, serious, and permanent injuries t0 his person, loss 0f income, medical expenses, all t0 her damage in a sum t0 be shown according t0 proof and within the jurisdiction 0f the Superior Court. 103. Defendants CKB and CKB LLC are either the manufacturer, distributor, 0r retailer and are liable in tort if a defect in the manufacture 0r design 0f its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way. 104. In addition, the glass was not manufactured and/or designed as required by the Federal and California regulations discussed above. 105. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, was egregious, oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, and undertaken with complete disregard for Plaintiff‘s safety, entitling Plaintiff t0 actual, punitive, and exemplary damages according t0 proof at trial. 106. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the actions 0f Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and emotional injuries which have caused Plaintiff t0 sustain severe, serious, and permanent injuries t0 his person, loss 0f income, medical expenses, all t0 her damage in a sum t0 be shown according t0 proof and within the jurisdiction 0f the Superior Court. COUNT 3: DESIGN DEFECT [Against Defendants, CKB; CKB LLC; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC.; and DOES 1-100] 107. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 108. Defendants CKB; CKB LLC; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC, and each 0fthem were 25 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO responsible for manufacturing, designing, distributing, installing, repairing, servicing and/or maintenance 0f the shower glass door in the HOTEL ROOM. 109. The shower door glass at the HOTEL ROOM was defective in design because it failed t0 perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended 0r reasonably foreseeable manner, and, the benefits 0f the design d0 not outweigh the risk 0f danger inherent in such design. 110. Most notably, the injuries t0 Plaintiff could have been avoided if a laminated glass was installed, 0r a safety film was applied 0n the glass door. In addition, the glass design was defective because the glass upon breaking, split into sharp jagged shards. 111. A11 Defendants knew the advantages 0f laminated glass 0r a safety film. Yet, they did not install laminated glass 0r a safety film. Defendants, and each 0f them, knew 0r should have known that upon breaking, the glass installed in the HOTEL ROOM would split into sharp jagged shards. 112. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, was egregious, oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, and undertaken with complete disregard for Plaintiff‘s safety, entitling Plaintiff t0 actual, punitive, and exemplary damages according t0 proof at trial. 113. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the actions 0f Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and emotional injuries which have caused Plaintiff t0 sustain severe, serious, and permanent injuries t0 his person, loss 0f income, medical expenses, all t0 her damage in a sum t0 be shown according t0 proof and within the jurisdiction 0f the Superior Court. COUNT 4: FAILURE TO WARN [Against ALL Defendants, and DOES 1-100, inclusive] 114. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 115. Based 0n various consumer reports, including but not limited t0, the reports 0f the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissions, concerning the injuries caused due t0 the shattering 0f glass shower doors, Defendants, and each 0f them, knew 0r should have known the risks 0f 26 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO injury from exploding shower doors. 1 16. Defendants, and each 0fthem, are engaged in business and profession that is based 0n specialized, scientific/technical knowledge, training, and skills. Therefore, they had detailed knowledge 0f the risks involved in the shattering 0f shower glass doors. Defendants like SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC. are specialized glaziers, and they have in-depth knowledge about risks from shattering glass shower doors. The U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission has, in their report, emphasized that “From 2012 through 2016, there were an estimated 2,300 U.S. emergency department Visits associated with shattering glass shower doors.” 117. Defendants, and each 0f them, had actual and constructive notice 0f the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission’s reports. 118. Defendants HYATT and HYATT CENTRIC had actual and constructive notice 0f the risks from shattering glass shower doors because there have been numerous incidents 0f injuries from shattering glass shower doors in hotels worldwide. Many hotels have taken adequate precautions by installing safety glass and posting warning signs. 119. Manufacturers have a duty t0 warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products. The purpose 0f requiring adequate warnings is t0 inform consumers about a product’s hazards and faults 0f which they are unaware, so that the consumer may then either refrain from using the product altogether 0r avoid the danger by careful use. 120. Although Defendants, and each 0f them, had actual knowledge 0f the risks 0f shattering shower glass door, yet, the standard is t0 require Defendants t0 have the knowledge and skill of an expert in the field; it is obliged t0 keep abreast 0f any scientific discoveries and is presumed t0 know the results 0f all such advances. 121. Defendants, and each 0f them, as experts, failed t0 warn Plaintiff. California is well settled into the majority View that knowledge, actual 0r constructive, is a requisite for strict liability for failure t0 warn. 122. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, was egregious, oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, and undertaken with complete disregard for Plaintiff‘s safety, entitling Plaintiff t0 actual, punitive, and exemplary damages according t0 proof at trial. 27 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO 123. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the actions 0f Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical and emotional injuries which have caused Plaintiff t0 sustain severe, serious, and permanent injuries t0 his person, loss 0f income, medical expenses, all t0 her damage in a sum t0 be shown according t0 proof and within the jurisdiction 0f the Superior Court. COUNT 5: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY [Against Defendants, CKB; CKB LLC; OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC.; and DOES 1-100] 124. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in this complaint as though set forth herein in full. 125. Upon information and belief, Defendants, CKB and CKB LLC, 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. 126. The ordinary user, a hotel guest invites, practice, would not have recognized 0r reasonably foreseen the potential harm and/or risk associated with the ordinary use 0f Subject Glass Shower Door. 127. Defendants CKB, CKB LLC, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and each 0f them, knew that said consumers and end-users, would be relying 0n their skill 0r judgment to furnish a Glass Shower Door that had the ability t0 meet their intended use, including the Subject Glass Shower Door within the HYATT CENTRIC. 128. Defendants CKB, CKB LLC, OTO, LUSARDI, and SIMMONS, impliedly warranted by the sales 0f the Subj ect 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 0r affirmations 0f fact made in its literature that it was safe for use during, among other procedures. 129. Defendants CKB, CKB LLC, OTO, LUSARDI, and SIMMONS, impliedly warranted that the Subj ect Glass Door Shower was safe for its ordinary purpose 0ftaking a shower 28 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO and free from design defects including its propensity t0 fail and explode-unexpectedly and without reason-during its ordinary use by end-users. 130. Defendants CKB, CKB LLC, OTO, LUSARDI, and SIMMONS, breached their implied warranty when they placed into the stream 0f commerce, the Subject Glass Door Shower that was, among other things, unfit and unsuitable for its intended use, and non-conforming t0 its literature’s claims 0f highest safety standards, thereby resulting in Plaintiff t0 sustain severe physical injuries, scars, and emotional damages, amongst other things. 13 1. As a direct and proximate result 0f the breach, negligence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness, and unlawfulness 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, and the resulting clip failure, as aforesaid, Plaintiff, sustained severe and serious injury t0 her person, all t0 Plaintiff’s damage in a sum within the jurisdiction 0f this Court and t0 be shown according t0 proof. 132. As a further and proximate result 0f said conduct 0f Defendants CKB, CKB LLC, OTO, LUSARDI, SIMMONS, and each 0f them, Plaintiff was 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 0f 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 t0 be shown according t0 proof. 133. In addition and by reason 0f 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. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, as follows: i. A judgment in favor 0f Plaintiff, 0n all claims set forth herein; ii. For General and Special damages, according t0 proof at trial; 29 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL MCMURRAY HENRIKs, LLP 811 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1640 Los ANGELES, CA 90017 KOOONONUl-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO iii. For compensatory damages, including but not limited t0: permanent disability; past and future loss 0f income, plus interest, lost fringe benefits and future lost fringe benefits, lost equity; past and future medical bills; damages for emotional distress; and pain and suffering, according t0 proof allowed by law; iV. For punitive damages allowed by law; V. For injunctive and/or declaratory relief; Vi. For an award 0f prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and Vii. For attorney’s fees; Viii. For any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances 0f the case. DATED: March 2, 2022 MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP By: Yana G. Henriks, Esq., Randy H. McMurray, Esq., Khachatur Ayvazyan, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. DATED: March 2, 2022 MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP By: Yana G. Henriks, Esq., Randy H. McMurray, Esq., Khachatur Ayvazyan, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintiff, TORI D. MOSES 30 PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL lO ll l2 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am emploged in the County 0f Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 t e within action; my business address is 811 Wilshire B1Vd., Suite 1640, Los Angeles, California 90017. On March 2, 2022, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: DECLARATION YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TORI D. MOSES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT by method indicated below, 0n the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST D BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I caused a copy 0f the document to be delivered personally to the individual(s) named in the attached service list. D BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the above-listed document(s) in an envelope 0r package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed it to the referenced in attached service list. I placed the envelope 0r package for collection and overnight delivery at an area regularly utilized by said delivery carrier. D BY FAX TRANSMISSION: I transmitted the foregoing document(s) by facsimile transmission from (323) 93 1 -9521 to the facsimile numbers indicated 0n the attached mailing list. The transmission was reported as complete and without error 0n the transmission report, Which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine and, pursuant to Rule 2.306(h)(4), a copy 0f Which is attached to the original of this proof 0f service. D BY U.S. MAIL: I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope 0r package to each addressee. I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our firm’s ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence is deposited With the United States Postal Service, With postage fully prepaid, 0n the same day in the ordinary course 0f business. BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I transmitted the foregoing document(s) by electronic mail from kayvazyan@LaW-MH.com to the electronic mail addresses indicated 0n the attached mailing list. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. {STATE 1: I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n March 2, 2022 at Los Angeles, California. /J/KhachaturAyvagya/n/ Khachatur Ayvazyan 4 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TORI D. MOSES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT lO ll l2 13 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST: Tori D. Moses v. Hyatt Corporation, et al. Case N0. 21CV381458 Randall D. Gustafson, Esq. Katie C. Brach, Esq. Gabriella S. Burden, Esq. LINCOLN GUSTAFSON & CERCOS 550 W. “C” Street, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-233-1 150 Facsimile: 619-233-6949 Email: rgustafson@lgclawoffice.com; kbrach@lgclawoffice.com; gburden@lgclawoffice.com Attorneysfor Defendant, LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; PALMETTO HOSPITALITY0FMOUNTAINVIEW, LLC D/B/A HYATT CENTRICMOUNTAIN; 0T0 DEVEL0PMENT Howard Roy Weber, Esq. Gregory P. Arakawa, Esq. WOOD SMITH HENNING BERMAN, LLP 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 700 Concord, CA 94520-3969 Telephone: 925-222-341 8 Email: hweber@wshblaw.com; garakawa@wshblaw.com SReindl@wshblaw.com Attorneysfor Defendant, HYATT CORPORATION Raymond Meyer, Jr., Esq. Bryan Stofferahn, Esq. Joyce E. Clifford, Esq. BREMER, WHYTE, BROWN & O’MEARA, LLP 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 355 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (5 10) 540-4881 Facsimile: (510) 540-4889 Email: rmeyer@bremerwhyte.com bstofferahn@bremerwhyte.com jclifford@bremerwhyte.com mvijil@bremerwhyte.com Attorneysfor Defendant, SIMMONS GLASS & WINDOW, INC. 5 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF TORI D. MOSES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT