notice to the clerk of the superior court and adverse parties of removCal. Super. - 1st Dist.August 9, 2019MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP CHRISTINE M. REILLY (Bar No. 226388) E-mail: CReilly@manatt.com JUSTIN JONES RODRIGUEZ (Bar No. 279080) E-mail: JJRodriguez@manatt.com KRISTIN E. HAULE (Bar No. 312139) E-mail: KHaule@manatt.com 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90064-1614 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 Attorneys for Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc. d/b/a Intelius SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JASON MYUNG ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. INTELIUS INC. and DOES 1-20, Defendants. No. CGC-18-571620 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT [Removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California] ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 06/14/2019 Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 14, 2019, this action was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:19-CV-3416. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal is attached as Exhibit A. Dated: June 14, 2019 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP By:/s/ Justin Jones Rodriguez Christine M. Reilly Justin Jones Rodriguez Kristin E. Haule Attorneys for Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc. d/b/a Intelius 323863104.1 EXHIBIT A MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP CHRISTINE M. REILLY (Bar No. 226388) E-mail: CReilly@manatt.com JUSTIN JONES RODRIGUEZ (Bar No. 279080 E-mail: JJRodriguez@manatt.com KRISTIN E. HAULE (Bar No. 312139) E-mail: KHaule@manatt.com 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90064-1614 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 Attorneys for Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc. d/b/a Intelius UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION JASON MYUNG ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. INTELIUS INC. and DOES 1-20, Defendants. No. 3:19-cv-3416 DEFENDANT PEOPLECONNECT, INC. D/B/A INTELIUS’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL [Removal of civil action from Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-18- 571620] [Filed concurrently with: (1) Certification of Interested Entities or Persons; (2) Corporate Disclosure Statement; (3) Certificate of Service.] Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1 of 6 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc. d/b/a Intelius (“PeopleConnect” or “Defendant”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, removes to this Court the state action described below, which is within the original jurisdiction of this Court and properly removed under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1367, 1441, 1446, and 1453. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(d), copies of this Notice of Removal are being served upon counsel for Plaintiff Jason Myung Rogers (“Plaintiff”) and filed with the Clerk of the California Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 1. On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a purported class action captioned Rogers v. Intelius, Inc., Case No. CGC-18-571620, against PeopleConnect in California Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-18-571620. The original complaint, which erroneously identified Intelius, Inc. as defendant, was never served. 2. On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC and Summons appear to have been served on Steven D. Cooper of Long Beach, California, who appears to be connected to a California corporation by the name of “PeopleConnect, Inc.” That company (and Mr. Cooper) is unrelated to the Delaware corporation, PeopleConnect, Inc., Defendant in this action. 3. On April 16, 2019, Plaintiff amended the FAC to correct Defendant’s name from “Intelius, Inc.” to “PeopleConnect, Inc. d/b/a Intelius.” 4. On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff served Defendant with the FAC, Summons, Case Management Conference Order, Amendment to the FAC, Statement of Damages, San Francisco County’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Information Package, and Case Management Statement. 5. This notice is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b) because it is filed within 30 days of May 17, 2019. 6. A true and correct copy of the Register of Actions in the State Court Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 2 of 6 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Proceeding is attached to this Notice as Exhibit 1. 7. True and correct copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon PeopleConnect in the State Court Action are attached to this Notice as Exhibit 2. NO JOINDER NECESSARY 8. Because there are no other defendants in this action, no consent to removal is necessary. ALLEGATIONS OF THE FAC 9. This action is a putative class action against PeopleConnect on behalf of those who, according to Plaintiff, have been harmed by PeopleConnect’s selling of criminal history reports to its customers. The caption page of Plaintiff’s FAC alleges causes of action for (1) defamation; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) general negligence; (4) violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200; and (5) violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17500. In contrast, the body of Plaintiff’s FAC alleges causes of action for (1) intentional infliction of mental distress; (2) libel per se; (3) general negligence; (4) violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17500; and (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200. 10. The FAC seeks general, compensatory, special, punitive, and exemplary damages, as well as injunctive relief, restitution, private attorney general fees, and costs of suit. FAC ¶¶ 126-130. 11. PeopleConnect disputes Plaintiff’s allegations, believes the FAC lacks merit, and denies that Plaintiff or the putative class members have been harmed in any way. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 12. This Court has original jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 3 of 6 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 13. Amount in Controversy. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages attached to the FAC alleges $350,000 in general damages and $65,000 in special damages ($415,000 total). 14. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. When evaluating the value of an injunction for amount in controversy purposes, the Ninth Circuit follows the “either viewpoint” rule. Under the “either viewpoint” rule, the amount in controversy is the pecuniary result the judgment would directly produce to either party. This pecuniary result includes the cost to defendant to implement an injunction. See, e.g., In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted in part sub nom. Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley, 534 U.S. 1126 (2002), and cert. dismissed, 537 U.S. 1 (2002); Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 405 (9th Cir. 1996). The costs to implement an injunction in this case would also exceed $75,000 because, among other reasons, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop PeopleConnect from selling certain background reports. See FAC ¶ 131. 15. Diversity of Citizenship. Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states. Plaintiff is a citizen San Francisco, California, where he both lives and works. FAC ¶ 3, 6, 76. Defendant is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Washington. FAC ¶ 5. 16. Supplemental Jurisdiction. This Court may choose to adjudicate any state-law claims that are so related that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). CAFA JURISDICTION 17. This action is within the original jurisdiction of this Court, and removal is therefore also proper under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), which grants district courts original jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and any member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant. As set forth below, this action satisfies each of the Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 4 of 6 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL requirements of Section 1332(d)(2) for original jurisdiction under CAFA. See Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 592 (2013). 18. Covered Class Action. This action meets the CAFA definition of a class action, which is “any civil action filed under [R]ule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(1)(B), 1453(a) & (b); FAC ¶ 7. 19. Diversity. The required diversity of citizenship under CAFA is satisfied because “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff is a citizen of San Francisco, California as of the time the lawsuit was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(7). FAC ¶ 3, 6, 76. PeopleConnect is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Washington. FAC ¶ 5. Thus, the diversity requirements of CAFA are satisfied. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). 20. Class Action Consisting of More than 100 Members. Plaintiff alleges PeopleConnect has sold information to over 30 million customers since its inception in 2003 and that its information services are based on its collection of more than 15 billion records. FAC ¶¶ 24, 84-85, 89, 111. Therefore, PeopleConnect reasonably believes the number of purported class members, in the unlikely event that Plaintiff can certify a class, would be greater than 100. 21. Amount in Controversy. Under CAFA, the claims of the individual class members are aggregated to determine if the amount in controversy exceeds the requested “sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(6). Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, and fees. FAC ¶¶ 126-130. Plaintiff claims damages as to himself of $415,000 (not include punitive damages, fees, or costs). Just thirteen class members claiming similar damages would exceed the $5,000,000 threshold. Without conceding any merit to the FAC’s damages allegations or causes of action, PeopleConnect reasonably believes the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff here would satisfy CAFA’s Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 5 of 6 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL jurisdictional threshold. CONCLUSION 22. Defendant PeopleConnect, having satisfied all requirements for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1367, 1441, 1453, and 1446, respectfully submits this Notice of Removal, requests that the Action be removed, and requests that the Court assume full jurisdiction over the case as provided by law. WHEREFORE, PeopleConnect respectfully removes this action from the California Superior Court, County of San Francisco, to this Court. Dated: June 14, 2019 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP By: /s/ Justin Jones Rodriguez Christine M. Reilly Justin Jones Rodriguez Kristin E. Haule Attorneys for Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc. d/b/a Intelius 323862789.2 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT 1 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1 of 3 Case Number: CGC18571620 Title: JASON MYUNG ROGERS VS. INTELIUS INC ET AL Cause of Action: DEFAMATION Generated: 2019-06-13 9:16 am Register of Actions Parties Attorneys Calendar Payments Documents Please Note: The "View" document links on this web page are valid until 9:26:52 am After that, please refresh your web browser. (by pressing Command +R for Mac, pressing F5 for Windows or clicking the refresh button on your web browser) Register of Actions Contact Us Show All entries Search: Date Proceedings Document Fee 2019-06-05 SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 63326653), PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG SERVED MAY-17-2019, PERSONAL SERVICE AS TO DEFENDANT PEOPLECONNECT, INC. DBA INTELIUS View 2019-05-22 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OF JUN-12-2019 CONTINUED TO JUL-17-2019 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610 TO OBTAIN AN ANSWER(S) FROM, OR ENTER DEFAULT(S) AGAINST, DEFENDANT(S) AS TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT. NOTICE SENT BY COURT. View 2019-05-20 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (TRANSACTION ID # 63282142) (TRANSACTION ID # 63282142) FILED BY PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 5.0 DAYS View 2019-05-14 SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 63265726), PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG SERVED APR-01-2019, PERSONAL SERVICE AS TO DEFENDANT PEOPLECONNECT, INC. DBA INTELIUS View 2019-04-16 AMENDMENT TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT PER ORDER DEFENDANT SUED INCORRECTLY AS INTELIUS INC TO BE PEOPLECONNECT, INC. DBA INTELIUS View 2019-04-12 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OF MAY-01-2019 CONTINUED TO JUN-12-2019 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 610. NOTICE SENT BY COURT. View 2019-02-15 SUMMONS ISSUED ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG View 2019-01-17 SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 62876728), PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG SERVED DEC-21-2018, PERSONAL SERVICE AS TO DEFENDANT PEOPLECONNECT, INC. DBA INTELIUS View 2019-01-03 PROOF OF SERVICE RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 62816094) FILED BY PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG View 2019-01-03 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 62816094) FILED BY PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG AS TO DEFENDANT PEOPLECONNECT, INC. DBA INTELIUS DOES 1 TO 20 View 2018-12-12 ORDER GRANTING WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO G.C. 68634 (E), CRC 3.52 AS TO PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG View 2018-12-12 MASTER MOTION CALENDAR ON DEC-12-2018 IN 206, HEARING ON APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF JASON ROGERS' WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS. RONALD MITCHELL TORAN, ESQ. APPEARING FOR PLAINTIFF. NO APPEARANCE BY APPLICANT. THE COURT GRANTED THE APPLICATION IN WHOLE. ORDER SIGNED, AND ENDORSED-FILED COPY MAILED TO APPLICANT. JUDGE: TERI L. JACKSON; CLERK: R. VELUZ; MATTER NOT REPORTED. (206) 2018-11-28 REQUEST PENDING TO WAIVE COURT FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO G.C. 68633, CRC 3.51, 8.26, AND 8.818 (CONFIDENTIAL) FILED BY PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG HEARING SET FOR DEC-12-2018 AT 09:00 AM IN DEPT 206 2018-11-28 NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF View Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 2 of 3 Showing 1 to 15 of 15 entries Previous 1 Next Date Proceedings Document Fee 2018-11-28 DEFAMATION, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF ROGERS, JASON MYUNG AS TO DEFENDANT PEOPLECONNECT, INC. DBA INTELIUS DOES 1 TO 20 SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR MAY-01-2019 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON JAN-28-2019 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON APR-08-2019 View $IFP Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-1 Filed 06/14/19 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 2 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1 of 52 $UMMONS UN FIIRST AMENDED ~r~►wa~acr (C/?'"ACIONJt/DMCll4L,j CAi1MP1[Al ~°"o~awoaee~ooRr~ NO110E'f0 OWENQANT: (A11lSo AL NOAQOj: jptliww Does 1-20 1rAclto,s Tytc. ifOJ ARE 9ENG BUED s'Y PWN'1`ff: {to EsrA Et 0ffiM4NtiF AaTF►: Jason Myung Rogers lIQRiCM Yon hM bW Wsa Tha oaat may dW*e agabat ynu v4NhW your bshg Maid taim you rsopald w" 80 Oye. ftW aw► kftmwt on You hova 30 GLENgAR OAYS aRw itft UMMM and leO paQars am seFvW on pau to 1ft a wOeq reepaM at qft omrt and hinrs a oopqr aalv on tlre pmin~t A leMor or phone +al wi nw! prabol M- Yow w►4am roeponw fiuet tae inpOper kpd torm H you wm 1ha cout to hsar yw em1 a Thas mqr ba a court Am #W Vw wm uaa !or W rospolow Ya► can %d RWx► ciVrt Eams and more kftrmadon at ths CiOonWA Gouft QnNne ffiaFFieip t:arMer (www*xr!(rftca.goi*aw**), Ya~u' aowriy kW tkxewy l# you (Mnnot pay iM 1hng tee, aak tha aouit deAc W a ta wakar tana. 9 yar do rA ft W ►eopmu an *+e. Yw woy kw the caee► bY deftft arxi Yar wa~e& aansp, and Pop" n►ay ba Moea tirOhowit GrtlsW wern6g Lan ihs catrt '1'tw►►an otlfv Mo n@**wwe: You may aa* W cd an AxMdgM awer~ -1f ~pou do na laww an aftrney. You myr wM to+aN ao aNrxnap rdu aaMa. d pou carat dUd an *6onwfr, Yoa w1+b* eVgWb tor rrae iepd sw You can locals Om arnipa44 qoups at ihs C.affoma legd 8an+lrsw ftb sb (wwwbwftaa+ftnia.crp), tbaE CWwft tTaexes Wdm 8e14W tiwMar (www aae*b.dR,.qow4aMh"j, srr by coetadi p lm bcd aowt a aou* bra aeeodatioa. IOM: Ths aocat has adoktmry Itm far wairad fas aM ooMa on ew or aibbaian award of#1Qt10p ar nKxs 1n a ciW cass. 'The court's lien muat bs paid baior+s 1Fre aowt wM dba~ tlie caa #AW= Lo Ami dammdad)6 St no roapa+ds da7dro ds 90 d%& d oorfepf+ade dsddlreo au onnAa ait eswmdw a+e varmtln, taa Ukdwmid6n a OwwnuwhkL T*w 30 OfABLE GLENMARJO tlr"Wa e1e rpsJr armogLw sft akaoldn ypopoft bpolas pwaProwMw una napusso por Ra ert ab aorb y lwrqua as wooaz ww tWi a1 dwnerdwo. tN►a rmo o+ma 4wnmb fthftNaa ro b prolsqan. S9rm*uade paaarallo Urnr qw► aor aa Ao+mrto Mgsl axnuta aideew pua pnooa~tan an esmo aa b caN. Es palill gw " anr bmdmrb qur+a4ecf pua4s uowpara au roqxm& f~rnaM aer~aMrar Mdos ~e da t~ aar~e y~arbs Nbrnnddn.aa a1 Canbo db A,pp1a dN 4wr Cmtes ds CaAibriWr (Miww.auoryft~mgw4 an ls b1DgoAm aa lyw dr su candacb o sala cao qw fa quads tnda oaica. 8f ttoPads Pepark mm6e dr prosonbc6% prda at aac Ienb de la aor(a qw tr di m Ib+aaft* dr oxsrmft da pW de aualm 5f m ptisaMa au npj*W a 1kr+m Pus* Ponbral oaaa porftwpMnbft y b ooro b poaM quiar au &Wfa clrma y et - ra1 1 aN ads adweftnds. MW mroa►nOvfts,ig Nwa Ea reoonevaMis qw ifmnn aun aDoqadln kwx4ftisman1s. .St no coraxe a un aDojpdq, ppaxb 11awa un aan*ft da nrrdfdd a abapaaba. Sii no pusde pepa*a un a6cgedq eapodble qus axet* cao ba rom#Afta para o0teaeraaafabe Aepaka qaMs aM an praprarnn dr awrkts Myiais & *w ek► lkw& Pwo* *rAoMw ertoa pn+poa ah Ow daltiao aa d aAb nab ds #.mtl6rni4 Lapd $wr=t. an N Caft ds Ayuda de ia Guiaa dr CeftniA &wrw.auWG►,na.Vv) a porWndoae sn oanwb oan Ir oaer o at eok~b dt abnpaallos AaaNas. A1M Fbruej+. b oarle QVme ahirodia aiodsaw fte cuass y ba eaaloa smd ►a lw►inoaawr un 6►avaimen aabre cua*4arneipseaadr► d+ ifUW 6+nier dir aslar tModbtaAr owMrnW c+n aauevub o u7a onvmaidr, ds md&rp en uun caaa tM dlNreelaf att Tlrm qas Mwel WWAmm dit ht aarEs anfisr de qua b oalspusrft dnratsr s! cvsa Tt,s nama ana addrees a ft aourt lL, t®r non,b+s y dwsolda de la caree sa?: San Fraaaisco Supericu' Cotim 400 McAliister Street Son Francisco, CA 94102 CGC 18-571620 Ths norro, adeyess. wd biophone ncmber o# piedntlR's afkamey cr piainbYt' wWoui an attorrwy, ia: (Ei nvotm, in a1 scoftr y et ndmwv da teidkn8 dr! a6opedb det domwxbrft o dW darnwdans Que eto Eaaar abogwdb, 40. Rald M. T~n 264 ~Oth Ave Sun Fcancisco, CA 44121(415}~319-9~33 ,F~Q'`~ ~ oA'rE. Februsry 15, 2019 ckft, by ~~~~ rtier,., rs~) _.c O Qj;x C Mlaar a anMros aa 61fa aununorm uas PlUO( aT aerwc3e CR ifLlmmorrs #Nan prosba ds a*vga ds *aa aik W -, uae al krmL4&b Proof dswvis M lKSfl= To't'M PgtKO SEW*IW: Y+ou are Sewed 1. (Q w sn bn*iduei delondent. 2. (p as ths psrnon suea under the 6WAlma nwna of(epacW: & M on behay a(apoW: PeopieC©nneac tnc Wa trneliurs mW. Q CCP 418.10 (corpar*jon) p CCF 416.W (n*a') p CCP 416.20 (dafimd corpore0on) 0 CCP 416.70 (oorAffvata) M CCP 41a.4Q (ecsoc7alion oo psrbwvhip) ~]✓ CCP 418.90 (eU#WtWd psr$on) L ~~o~ ~~P~~' I CZ] agm (Vwwy): 4. © bY WwW d*4wy on (dam)= ft"Aftw+er~r~» SUMAAONS caa.o►oa ~~~ a~IlaYlCet~ddC~aN~ !W 100 PW. J* 1, wpj Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 2 of 52 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ronald M. Toran. (SBN: 84027) 264 20' Avenue San Francisco, California 94121 Te1.; (415) 919-9033 rmt@ toranlawsf. com Attorney for Plaintiff JASON MYLT,NG ROGERS ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superfor Court of CaliRarnis, County of san /zrenclsco oslo3/2a19 Clerk of the Court sY:CARcx, BALtSrRERI Cf®puty CIerR SUPERI03t COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JASON MYUNG ROGERS, Case No. CGC-18-571620 CLASS ACTION Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR vs. DAMAGES, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND EQUITABLE AND INJUNCTIVE REL: FOR: INTELIUS INC. gpd DOES 1-20 1) DEFAMATION; 2) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 3) GENERAL NEGLIGENCE; 4) VIOLATION OF B&P 17200; AND 5) VIOLATION OF B&P ~ 27500 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Jason Myung Rogers (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff" and or "ROGERS'l, '. on behalf of himself, the general pubiic, and on behalf of a Class of others similarly-situated, brings this lawsuit against INTELIUS, INC. and Does 1-20, inclusive, for compensatory damages and equitable injunctive and or declaratory relie£ Pl.aintiff alleges the following for after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, which allegations are likely to have B[R3T AMENDED COMPLAINT CASENO. CGC-18-S7152Q Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 3 of 52 1 evidentiary support after appropriate investigation and discovery, alleges the following on 2~ information and belief (except those allegation which pertain specifically to Plaintiff which are 3 alleged upon personal knowledge): 4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5 6 1. All the acts complained of herein and the damages suffered by ROGERS were 7 the result Defendant INTELIUS, INC.'s unlawful, tortious, and reckless business-related 8 conduct which took place witllin the City and County of San Francisco, California. 9 2. Said unlawful, tortious, and reckless business-related conduct involved 10 INTELIUS's engagement with their customers, Brain andlor Jean Lee (the "LEES") 11 12 for the purpose of selling the LEES background information services concerning ROGERS. This 13 engageement took place over the internet but within the jurisdiction of the City and County of 14 Francisco, beeause INTELIUS business contacts with San Franeisco are substantial, continuous, 15 ongoing and purposeful, and the business and conduct that is at the root of this lawsuit was 16 between INTELIUS and the LEES, who lived within the City and County of San Francisco at 17 18 pertinent times and contracted INTELIUS's services while they were within the City and 19 County of San Francisco, thus INTELIUS willingly and knowingly availed itself of the 20 protections and laws of the State of California with the proper venue for this lawsuit falling 21 within the City and County of San Francisco. 22 3. At aU times relevant to this lawsuit, both of the LEES and ROGER.S lived within 23 24 the City and County of San Francisco, California, 25 4. Defendant INTELIUS has purposefully availed itself of, and conducts business 26 in, all of California's markets, :including San Francisco, for the sale of its services and products. 27 TRE PARTIES 28 E1RST AMENDED COMPLAINT GASE No. CGC-18-571624 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 4 of 52 1 5. Defendant 1NTBLIUS 1NC. ("INTELIUS") was incorporated in the state of Delaware in 2 January 2003. INTELIUS's principal executive ofEces are presently located at 500108Ih 3 Avenue NE, 251 Floor, Bellevue, Washington 98004. INTELIU3 presently, and during all 4 relevant times herein, operates and conducts its business throughout every county in Califomia 5 6 and throughout every state in the United States of America. 7 6. Plaintiff JASON MYUNG ROGERS ("ROGERS") is and has been a resident of the 8 and County of San Francisco, California, at all times relevant herein. ROGERS brings_this 9 lawsuit on his own behalf and on behalf of the general public pursuant to Code of Civil 10 Procedure Section 1021.5 as this lawsuit, if successful, will infer a substantial benefit to a broad 11 12 and vast number people in the public at large. 13 7. Currently unidentified individuals who consist of the proposed class of people whom 14 have been harmed by INTELIUS's lnc's tortious, unlawfiil, wrongful, and knowingly reckless 15 conduct of selling false, deceptive, misleading, and defamatory federal criminal history reports 16 its customers and who have suffered monetary injury and or emotional distress stemming from 17 18 said wrongful conduct. ROGERS is bringing this lawsuit both on his own behalf and as a 19 prospective representative of said class of harmed people pursuant to CCP § 382. Common 20 issues of fact predonunate over individualized questions. The class is expected to consist of 21 many persons such that it is impracticable for each to bring his own lawsuit before the court and 22 23 certification as a class would provide substantial benefits that would render proceeding as a class 24 superior to the alternatives. 25 S. ROGERS intends to move for class-certifications when he is able to ascertain the 26 identities of a sufficient number of said prospective class members. 27 9. The identities of DOES 1-20 are currently unknown but ROGERS is informed and 28 FIIts? AMENDED COMPI.ASNT CASE N0. CC3C-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 5 of 52 believes that these individuals and organizations are also liable for his damages and in,jwies 2 complained of herein and will amend this complaint to add the narnes of said individuals and 3 organization once they are ascertained. 4 5 5 10. This action arises from I1V`I`ELIUS's corrupt, unlawful, and reckless business practices, 7 premised on a business plan of creating, deveioping and publishing, on its own accord, without 8 reliance or based on third pariy information, untive, false, deceptive, misleading and fraudulent 9 criminal background information pursuant to its business strategy that is intended and designed 10 to incrtease its revenue, maximize its pmfit rnargin and enlarge its market share , on a per 11 customer sales transaction basis. 12 13 11. I)uring the sales transaction process, regardless of its customers' initial background 14 purchase, INTELIUS, pursuant to its stated comrpt, unlawful and reckless business practice, 15 model and strategy, upsells andlor cross-sells said customer, by offering additional and or rnore lb detailed baekground information, including a comprehensive federal criminal history report, 17 18 regardless ofwhether the additional infonnation being offered even exists. 19 12. It makes no difference to INTELIUS whether the additional information exists or not 20 because either way INTELIUS will sell the offered product to its customers that they 21 successfully up-sell and or cross-sell. 22 13. If individual has no federal crirninal history, INTELIUS still induces and deeeives its 23 24 customers into believing the individual they are researching or looking into has a federal crimi 25 history, and if INTELIUS succeeds with their rouse and the customer accepts their offer to 28 purchase a federal criminal history report, they simply create and develop a false, deceptive, 27 misleading and defamatory federal criminal history report which they then sell to their custom 28 F1TtsT aMlsTilaEn coMPLnINr CASE No. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 6 of 52 who believe that, as per INTELIUS own express statements, they are purchasing accurate, 2 timely, and actionable information that has been cleansed, compared, and validated pursuant to 3 INTELIUS's proprietary soflware algorithms and analytics which insures that customers receive 4 useful and actionable information, 5 6 14. In doing so, INTELIUS actively and knowingly defrauds its customers by tricking them 7 into believing that they are purchasing accurate, actionable, and timely information when in fact 8 they are purchasing information which can only be used to harm innocent and unsuspecting 9 individuals, like ROGERS, who are victimized by 1NI'ELIUS, who provides the false lU information, and INTELIUS's customers, who may utiiize and rely on a false criminal history 11 12 report to not hire a job applicant or to fire a current employee, or who may republish said false 13 criminal history report and defame, injure and or harm an innocent and unsuspecting person, 14 which is what happened to ROGERS. 15 15. INTELIUS's corruut business oractice of creating, develoaint and offfering, on its 16 own initiative and accord, not on the basis of, or in retiance on, anv third-aartv 17 18 information. false, untrae, misleading and fraudalent information to its customers that is 19 specificallv desianel, calculated and intended to deceive, mislead and enticg ansnsnectins 20 customers to make addittonal, unnecessary and costiv monetary purchases of its services. 21 16. When a customer purchases the most basic, low cost background report on Person X, 22 23 INTELIUS will offer to sell that customer a federal criminal background report on Person X 24 even if Person X has absolutely no history of any federal crimes. And if said customer is enticed 25 by said offer, INTELIUS manufactures, creates, concocts, develops on its own accord and not 26 in reliance on any third-party information, the knowingly false, reckless and defamatory 27 statement that Petson X may be the federal criminai defendant in a list of about five (5) different 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAnVT CASE N0. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 7 of 52 federal criminal cases filed throughout the United States. These cases may have been filed in a 2 federal court in any state, including those states that lntelius has no record that Person X has evei 3 lived in. Because INTELIUS has an extensive collection of infornlation about people that 4 consists of thousands upon thousands of online and offline data sources that they dynamically 5 6 access, manage, integrate, cleanse and validate in real tfine INTELIUS either knows, or should 7 know that Person X is not the defendant in any of the federal criminal cases in the list of cases 8 that they sold to their customdr. This is exactly what happened between R(JGERS, who is 9 tantamount to Person X above, and INTELIUS, and INTELIUS's customers where RUGERS' 10 previous neighbors, the LEES. 11 12 17. Furthermore, INTELIUS sells said false, misleading, deceptive, and defamatory 13 information despite their actual knowledge that said information can be, has been, and will 14 continue to be used and abused by their customers to the detriment of Person X or any other 15 person who Intelius has created and sold a false and misleading criminal background report on, 16 such as PlaintiffJason Myung Rogers. Specifically, INTELIUS even warns their prospective 17 18 investors that they have been sued by both ir►dividuals and in class action litigation based on 19 claims of defaznation, negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and other claims a8er 20 they sold false crinunal background infonnation on people to their customers (just like they did 21 to Brian and Jean Lee when they sold them a false and defamatory criminal background nrport 22 23 on Plaintiff Jason Myung Rogers who has never been charged with a federal crime) which their 24 customers then used to the detriment of those individuals falsely accused of having been 25 involved in federal crimes. 26 18. IPTTELIUS'S stated corrupt and unlawful business strategy and practice is of an 27 ongoing, continuing nature, that began 15 years ago. lt is beyond dispute that INTELIUS 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CCiC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 8 of 52 recognizes and is aware that its stated business practice is premised on an unlawfutly corrupt 2 strategy, specifically calculated and designed to increase its profits at the expense of its 3 customers, who are misled, deceived and, ultimately, enticed to purchase additional monetarily 4 costly and unnecessary INTELIUS services. 5 6 19. It is beyond dispute that INTELIUS is thus gullty of violating PENAL CODE 7 SECTION 532 or theft by false pretenses because it knowingly and designedly uses fraudulent representations to obtain money from its defrauded unassuming customers each and every time it 9 sells a federal criminal background report on someone that INTELIUS knows or should know la has never been a defendant in a federal criminal prosecution. 11 12 24. Thus, while INTELIUS's eorrupt and unlawful business practiee and strategy not only 13 defrauds and bilks its customers for millions of dollars every year, it aiso knowingly exposes 14 mmmerous unsuspecting, innocent third parties, like the Plaintiff herein, JASON MYUNG 15 ROGERS, to foreseeable horrific injuries, financial and economic damages and extreme 16 emotional and mental distress. 17 18 21. Because the consent of the numerous past victims of INTELIUS's eorrupt business 19 strategy and practices perpetrated over the past fifteen years, as well as those victims who 20 may be injured in the future, cannot be obtained and whose identities are presently unknown and 21 because the questions of law and fact set forth herein are of common and general interest to 22 23 as well and because it its impracdcable to bring them all before the Court, ROGERS sues on 24 behalf of them and himself pursuant to CCP section 382. 25 22. As it will be shown herein, because INTELIUS's ongoing unlawfully corrupt internet 26 conduct is profit driven, fraudulent, reckless, malicious, remorseless, widespread throughout 27 every state in America and in violation of Penal Code Section 532 it represents an ever-present 28 FIRsr AMBWnBD coMPLAINr CASE N0. CGC-1k-371620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 9 of 52 danger to the general public that requires prompt and inunediate injunctive relief by this Court. 2 23. Accordingly, RUGERS brings this lawsuit on behalf of the general public and himself 3 and seeks compensation for the damages he has suffered, an injunction against INTELIUS's 4 aforementioned corrupt business practice and strategy and private attorney general fees pursuant 5 6 to Civil Code 1021.5 and punitive and exemplary damages. 7 GENEItAL ALLEGATICINS 8 24. INTELIUS is a leading, billion-dollar, online internet commercial enterprise that has 9 sold information to over 30 million customers since its inception in 2003. INTELIUS's 10 information services are based on its vast collection of more than 15 billion (and growing 11 12 public and publicly available, as well as commercially available, records about people, 13 businesses, numerous religious, fraternal and political organizations, clubs, associa.tions, Federal, I 14 city, state and local governments and fmancial assets. 15 25. INTELIUS advertises and informs its investors, customers and the general public that it 16 utilizes advanced, highly sophisticated and innovative technologies to dynamically access, 17 1$ manage, integrate, cleanse and validate massive amounts of data, in real time, in order to provide I 19 accurate, reliable and actionable inforcnation. 20 26. INTELIUS is aware that it provides untrue, false, fraudulent, deceptive and /or 21 intentionally misleading information (that it creates and develops on its own itnitiative and 22 23 accord aad not ln reliance on any thlyd-party information) to its customers. 24 27. INTELIUS is aware that because it provides the above stated untrue, false, fraudulent, 25 deceptive, and intentionally misleading information that it has been sued by the individuals who 26 have been harmed by INTELIUS tortious, uniawful, and intentional conduct, to wit, by those 27 people who INTELIUS has falsely aecused of having federal criminal histories when in fact 28 FTRST AMENDED COIu[PLAIMT CASE Nf?. CGC-15-571626 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 10 of 52 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 they have none and that the overall value of their business operates under the risk of current and future lawsuits based on said conduct. 28. INTELIUS, despite having the aforementioned knowledge of the risk to their business exposed by litigation brought by individual harmed by INTELIUS's publication of knowingly false, defamatory, and deceptive federal criminal histories, INTELIUS continues to sell, create and develop said false, defamatory, misleading and deceptive federal criminal histories because it is a key component that drives INTELIUS's revenue stream and that without upselling their customers, to wit selling them false deceptive, and defamatory criminal histories about people who they know or should know have no such federal criminal histories, their business mdel would suffer and the monetary value of their company would plummet. 29. INTELIUS admits that the type of legal claims it has faced, is facing and will continue face in the future based on their aforementioned tortious, intentional, deceptive, and defamatory conduct in selling their customers knowingly false federal criminal histories, inciude claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, class action lawsuits and numerous otlier tortious and criminal violations. 30. INTELIUS is aware that in providing unlawful, false, untrue, fraudulent, niisleading, deceptive and/or intentionally inaccurate information, that it creates and develops on its own initiative and accord and that is not in reliance on information received from a third•party source, that it then selis to its customers, that it is foreseeably and potentially liable and at risk for and exposed to legal ciaims for punitive damages and costly litigation costs to innocent third parties who are injured as a result arising out of its corrupt business model and plan of creating, developing and publishing false criminal background information pursuant to its stated business strategy, intended and designed to maxinuze its revenue on a per customer basis. F1RST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASB NO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 11 of 52 31. INTELIUS is aware that the continued success and growth of their company is 2 inextricably linked to the public's perception that they sell the most recent, most accurate, most 3 reliable and most actionable information about peaple of all of the various internet information 4 service providers and that if the public and their current customers begin to question the 6 tnrthfulness of the information they are being sold it may negatively impinge their desired rate i 7 growth and in fact cause the monetary value of their company to diminish. 8 32. INTELIUS, in order to ensure that their current and future potential customers believe 9 that they sell only truthfiil, reiiable and accurate infonnation, informs the pubiic that they have 10 created and utilize complex software and highly advanced sophisticated proprietary analytics to 11 12 purge, compare, cleanse, update, validate, and verify their data, which consists of an enormous 13 and vast array ofpublic and commercial data and infonnation on individuals, in order to ensure 14 that their customers receive accurate, truthful, and actionable information. IS 33. INTELIUS acknowledges that their business was created to meet and satisfy the demand 16 created by consumers and organizations that are increasingly turning to the internet for 17 18 information services to make better-informed decisions about the people, businesses and assets 19 with whom and with which they interact, and that the inforaration that they sell is intended to 20 provide said consumers and organizations with reliable utformation to help them identify, 21 monitor, interpret resolve and respond to specific situations, problems and concerns in their 22 environment that they encounter. 23 24 34. INTELIUS informs the public that one of the "Key Eiements" to what they call, "The 25 Intelius Solution" (the solution to the needs of individuals and organizations for accurate, 26 and actionable information to help them identify, monitor, interpret, and respond to specific 27 situations and their environment) is that they sell and provide their customers with "iTseful 28 FIRST AMBTTnED coMPLAINT cASE Na. CGC-iS-s71628 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 12 of 52 Information About People, Businesses, and Assets," and that the way they provide their cm 2 with said information is by dynamically accessing, managing, integrating, cleansing, and 3 validating, in real time, their extensive collection of information about people, so that they 4 provide accurate, timely, and useful information. S 6 35. However, despite, INTELIUS's representations that they utilize sophisticated software, 7 algorithms and analytics, to dynamicaily access, manage, integrate, cleanse, and validate, in real 8 time, their huge collection of data and information on people so that they provide accurate, 9 timely, actionable, and useful information that their customers r.an rely on, the truth is that IQ INTELIUS knowingly and intentionally sells their customers false, deceptive, defamatory and 11 12 inaccurate fedcral criminal histories of the people whom their customcrs pay thcm to gather 13 infonmation on in order to further their growth and business goals and to ensure they generate th 14 necessary revenue to continue to grow their company. Furthermore, INTELIUS knows that the 15 individuals whom they sell false, deceptive, and defamatory federal criminal histories on have 16 incurred, and will continue to incur in the future, serious injuries and damages, as a direct result 17 18 of said unlawficl activities. 19 36. INTELIUS, by knowingly, intentionally and designedly offering and providing false 20 information to its customers pursuant to its unlawful business practice, as it did to the LEEs as 21 set forth in detail herein, is guilty of violating PENAL CODE SECTION 532 or theft by fallse 22 23 pretenaes because it obtains mney from its defrauded customers who detrimentally rely on said 24 fraudulent representations, as the LEEs did. 25 37. Brian Lee and/or JEAN LEE ("LEES"}, using JEAN LEE's long established RfTELIUS 26 account and JEAN LEE' s credit card, were fraudulently deceived, enticed and misled by 27 INTELIUS into purehasing a comprehensive federal and state criminal background check 28 FQlsT AMENDED CQMPLAiAtT CASENO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 13 of 52 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 about ROGERS in reliance on the false information provided to them as set forth below. 38. IIVTELIUS knew that there were absolntely no federal criminal records or data in ( existence that remotely showed that ROGERS was, was possibly or even may have been possibly, at any time, involved in, charged with, indicted for or convicted of any federal crime, in any United States Federal Court. Nevertheless, INTELIUS, on its own initiative, not in reliance on any third party information, created, developed and, in response to the LEES' aforementioned reyuest for its services regarding ROGERS, provided them, pursuant to its aforementioned corrupt business strategy and practice, with a fraudulent, untnie, false, misleading and deceptive comprehensive federal and state criminal background information about ROGERS, including, but not limited to the following false, fraudulently, misleading, deceptive and defamatory information; to wit: "Possible Federal Crim inal Records - One or more of these r,ecords may be the JasoK Rogers you selected " Jason M Rogers Arkansas Eastern District Court (AR) USA v. JASON. M. ROGERS Case Number 4:2006-cr-00248 Date Filed: July 11, 2006 Jason Duane Rogers California Eastern District Court (CA) USA V Valdez Tones et al - Jason Duane Rogers Case Number: 2:201 5-cr-00 131 Date filed: July 9, 2015 Date closed: unavailable Jason E Rogers Maryland District Court (MD) USA v Rogers - Jason E Rogers Case number: 1:2016-mj-01559 Date filed: June 8, 2016 Date closed: Sep 6, 2016 Jason R Rogers Washington Vltestem District Court (WA) F[RST AMSiYDED COMPLAtNT CASfi 1V0. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 14 of 52 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 USA v Rogers - Jason R Rogers Case number: 3:2015-po-06185 Date filed: May 12, 2015 Date closed: May 26, 2015 Jason Duane Rogers Califomia Eastem District Court (CA) USA V Valdez Torres et al - Jason Duane Rogers Case Number: 2:2015-mj-00369 Date filed: Jun 24, 2015 Date closed: unavailable 39. INTELIUS knew (1) that the fuIl correct name of the JASON M. ROGERS who was the criminal defendant in the federal criminal case set forth above in paragraph 38, was JASON MICHAEL ROGERS/MANNING; (Z) that his date of birth was 11/25/1976; (3) that he was incarcerated in the Arkansas Depariment of Corrections (ADC), Varner Unit; (4) that his ADC number was 108709 and (5) that he was Caucasian. 40. INTELIUS knew (6) that ROGERS full name was JASON MYUNG ROGERS; (7) that ROGERS date of birth was 3/23/1972; (8) that ROGERS was of Korean descent and not Caucasian and (9) that ROGERS resided in San Francisco, California on July 11, 2006 and that he was currently residing in San Francisco. 41. INTELIUS knew (10) that ROGERS was not, could not possibly be, or even may have been, the Federal criminal defendant in the case entitled USA v. ,TASON M. ROGERS Case Number 4:2006-er-00248; (11) that it was knowingly providing the LEES with deceptively false untrue, fraudulent, defamatory, usetess and intentionally misleading information that ROGERS passibly may be the criminal defendant in federal Case Number 4: 2006-cr-00248, entitled USA v JASON M. ROGERS; (12) that there were absolutely no federal criminal records, of any kind whatsoever, in existence and easily available to INTELIUS, that showed, demonstrated or FtRST AMEIVDED COMPLAMT CASENO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 15 of 52 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 remotely indicated that ROGERS possibly could, or even may, have threaten to kill a federal judge in 2006; and most importantly (13) INTELIUS knew that it created, developed and published, this deceptive, recklessly misleading, false, and defamatory statement on its own initiative and not on the basis or in reliance on any information it received from a third- party source. 42. INTELIUS knew (14) that there was a substantially high foreseeable risk of harm that the LEES, or any of its other customers requesting infonmation about ROGERS' Federal Criminal Records, could use the false, fraudulent and intentionally rnisleading infonmation that it, on its own i.nifiiative, created, developed and published about ROGERS, including but not limited to the following; to wit: "Possible Federal Criminal Records - One or more of these records may be the Jason Rogers you selected," that could or would cause ROGERS to suffer harm; but (15) that INTELIUS, with full knowledge of the highly foreseeable risk of harm to ROGERS, provided the LEEs with this deceptively false and recklessly misleading infortnation pursuant to its stat,ed corrupt business practice, strategy, plan, design and its objective to be the leading internet provider of infon:nation services, by increasing its revenue per customer by up- selling, eross-selling and advertising, designed to entice and deceive its customers to purchase more of its costly and unnecessary services. 43. Brian Lee utilized and relied on the false, misleading, deceptive and defamatory federal criminal history on Plaintiff that INTELIUS sold him, and published on numerous occasions, to numerous third parties, including ROGERS' neighbors, landlordlemployer, the San Francisco City and District Attorneys' tJffices and numerous SFPD ofl'icers, that ROGERS was the defendant in Arkansas Eastern Federal District Court (AR); in the case entitled ZISA v. JASON. M. ROGERS; Case Number 4: 2Qt16-cr-QD248. Mr. Lee then researched the case number from F1RST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASENO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 16 of 52 said federal criminal case, information sold to him by Intelius, and discovered that the defendant 2 in said case was found guilty of "ffimtened to kill a federal judge and his family in 2006." and 3 included this false and defamatory accusation about ROGERS in his numerous false and 4 defamatory publications set forth above. 5 6 44. As a result of INTELIUS's false and defamatory' publication of ROGERS' alleged 7 federal criminal history, information the LEE's purchased and used to then publish further 8 defama.tory, false and reckless information about ROGERS, ROGERS has suffered from severe 9 PTSD which has been diagnosed by an expert in the field of PTSD who has linked said PTSD 10 directly to the LEE's false and defamatory publications outlined herein above. 11 12 45. On or about November 29, 2017, Rogers first discovcred INTELIUS'S wrongful acts, 13 hereinabove set forth in detail. 14 46. Since November 29, 2017 ROGERS has lived in in a continuous and ongoing state of 15 fear marked by physicai manifestation of said severe emotional distress, including depression, 16 anxiety, and PTSD, as INTELIUS does not give Plaintiff any notice if and when it sells another 17 18 false, reckless, and defamatory federal criminal history about him to another customer, as they 19 did to the LEES (who then utilized and relied on said publication to publish fiuther false and 20 defamatory accusation about Plaintiff to his neighbors, his landlord, numerous police officers, 21 numerous San Francisco Assistant District Attomeys, and to the San Francisco City Attorney's 22 Office). 23 24 47. And, for all that ROGERS knows, INTELIUS may have already sold additional false 25 criminal backgmund reports to other customers of theirs. 26 48. Further cementing and driving home the risks that INTELIUS poses to Plaintiff should it 27 continue to sell its customers the false, deceptive, and defamatory federal criminal history about 28 FIRST AMETIDED COMPIJUNT CASE NO. CtiC- f&-571 b20 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 17 of 52 1 him that it sold to the LEES, RC}GERS just recently learned that a friends of his was sub,jected to 2 false and defamatory publications on the internet and that as a result of said publications, 3 ROGERS' friend has essentially been blacklisted firom his chosen field of work and is no longer 4 able to earn a living in it. 5 6 DELAYED DISCOVERY 7 49. While the knowing, intentional, false, reckless, deceptive and d.efamatory publication at 8 issue here, made by INTELIUS, was made more than a year ago, to wit, when INTELIUS sold 9 to the LEES a false, deceptive, and defamatory alleged federal criminal history on Plaintiff, the 10 delayed discover rule applies to matters published in an inherently secretive manner. Hebrew 11 12 Academy of San Francesco, v Goldman (2007) 42 Cal.0 883, 894. 13 50. Because INTELIUS's publication was made privately to the LEES and no notice was 14 I given to Plaintiff, the delayed discovery rule applies and tolls the accrual of the statute of 15 I linutations for all causes of action alleged herein because said publication was done via an 16 I inherently secretive manner. 17 18 51. Because ROGERS did not discover said publication until November 29, 2017, all causes 19 I of action alleged herein are brought within their relevant statute of limitations. 20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 21 (Intentional Infliction of Mental distress against INTELIUS AND DOES 1-20) 22 52. ROGERS incorporates, as though realleged herein, each and every allegation set forth in 23 24 I paragraphs 1 through 51. 25 53. When INTELIUS sold the LEES a basic background reports on Jason Myung Rogers it 26 ( knew or should have known that ROGERS was never a defendant in a single federal criminal 27 I case. However, pursuant to INTELIUS's business model of upselling its customers and offering 28 FIIts7' AMBWDED COMPLAINT ,~ CASE NO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 18 of 52 them the option to purchase a federal crinunal history report regardless of whether the individual 2 being researched actually had a federal criminal history, it did in fact make said offer to sell 3 Bryan or Jean Lee a federal criminal history report on R(3GERS. When said offer was accepted 4 INTELIUS created developed and published a knowingly false, deceptive, and defamatory S 6 federal criminal history report allegedly belonging to Jason Myung Rogers. And even though 7 IlJTELIUS had absolutely zero data or information stating, implying, inferring, or even hinting ~ 8 that Jason Myung Rogers was a defendant in any federal criminal cases, they tortuously, j 9 maliciously, unlawfully and recklessly created and developed and sold the LEES a knowingly I ~ 10 false, deceptive, reckless and defamatory federal criminal history report. 11 12 54. Furthermore when INTELIUS sold the LEES said federal criminal history report for 13 Jason Myung Rogers, it did so with the actual and direct knowledge that in selling the LEES said 14 federal criminal history report on Plaintiff, that they were intentionally and or recklessly placing 15 Plain#iff directly in harm's way because INTELIUS knew that the LEEs could possible use said 16 false, misleading, deceptive, and defamatory federal background history report to hann Plaintiff 17 18 byl) defaming him either via liable and or slander and or 2) by pubiishing said information to 19 any number of third persons or organizations and or by 3) using said false information to 20 influence an employment hiring situation specifically to prevent Plaintiff from beiang hired. 21 55. INTELIUS was and is fully aware that by selling the LEES said criminal history report, 22 23 they were placing Plaintiff directly in harm's way and that he may suffer in any one of the ways 24 mentioned above because INTELIUS has admitted and published to the public the fact that they 25 have been sued for defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, and for punitive damages and 26 that specifically they had been sued for selling inaccurate and false criminai history reports about 27 people who have been harmed and subsequently filed suit against them. Furthermore, 28 FtRST AM6NDSD CAMPLAIlVT CASE AJO. GGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 19 of 52 INTELIUS has informed its prospective investors and the public that they will continue to face 2 this risk, that it is an ongoing risk, and that if they are unable to effectively manage the possible 3 litigation, the value of their company could diminish. 4 56. However, INTELIUS knowingly and intentionally accepts this risk caused by their own 5 6 reckless conduct of intentionally and knowingly placing innocent third parties, like ROGERS, 7 directly in harm's ways by selling its customers false crimi.nal background reports because, as 8 INTELIUS freely states, their business model of cross-selling and upselling their customers 9 add-on reports such as federal crinvnal history reports, even when the individual has no actual 10 federal criminal history, is a key revenue driver for them. 11 12 57. INTELIUS knew or should have known that it was providing false, untrue, fraudulent, 13 deceptive and intentionaliy misleading information about ROGERS to the Lees, and that 14 ROGERS was, without a shadow of a doubt, not the criminal defendant in a single federal case. 15 58. INTELIUS created, developed and published said false, deceptive, misleading, and 16 defamatory information on its own accord and initiative and not in reliance on infonnation 17 18 provided by any third-party source, and that it intended to deceive, mislead and entice the LEEs 19 to purchase said false federal criminal history report on ROGERS to his great detriment and 20 harm. 21 59. With full knowledge that the information contained in its comprehensive federal and 22 23 criminal background check on the Plaintiff JASON MYUNG ROGERS was deceptively false, 24 untrue, misleading and fraudulent, INTELIUS still responded to the LEE's purchase request by 25 pr+oviding them with it. 26 60. It was clearly foreseeable to INTELIUS that said false criminal history report could and 27 mi$ht be used to cause PlaintifFJASON MYUNG ROGERS to suffer harr'n, damages and 28 FIRST AMENDBD COMPL,AIiVT CASE N0. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 20 of 52 injury, yet INTELIUS did so because they were motivated by its greedy corrupt business 2 practice, model and strategy of creating, developing and publishing untrue, false, misleading and 3 fraudulent criminal background information, intended and designed to maximize its revenue per 4 custorner during the initiai sales transaction process, especially with repeat customers like Jean 5 6 Lee, by offering an enhanced version ofthe initially requested offering, designed and intended to' 7 entice, and to deceive its customers to make additional unnecessary and costly purchases of its E: 11 services. 9 61. The wrongful, malicious conduct and corrupt and criminai business practices of la INTELIUS, as stated in detail herein, was so outrageous and extreme as to exceed all bounds of 11 12 conduct tolerated in a civil society that it shocks the conscience of reasonable people. 13 62. INTELIUS acted with extreme and reckless disregard of the high probability that 1411 ROGERS would suffer emotional distress but decided it was a calculated risk LNTELIUS was 15 willing to take beeause of the enormous arnount of revenue said shocking and outrageous 16 conduct and activities helped them to earn. 17 18 63. Said outrageous and extreme conduct was a substantial contributing factor in causing 19 ROGERS to suffer severe emotional distress 20 64. Darnages to be proved at trial are more than the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 21 65. In addition, R(1GERS is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages as is set forth in 22 detail hereinafter, because INTELIUS's conduct was criminal, malicious, fraudulent, and 23 24 oppressive. 25 SECOlr1D CAUSE OF ACTION 26 (Libel Per Se against INTELIUS AND DOES 1-20) 27 66. ROGERS incorporates, as though realleged herein, each and every allegation set forth in 28 FIRST AMENrtED CUMPLAINT CASE No. CGC-18•371620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 21 of 52 paragraphs 1 through 65 and alleges on information and belief the following: 2 67. Libel per se is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, or other fixed 3 representation to the eye, that charges a person with. a crime or having been convicted or 4 punished for a crime, that exposes a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule or which causes or 5 6 a tendency to injwe him in his occupation. 7 68. INTELIIIS published the false, reckless, deceptive, and defamatory statements set forth S herein above, concerning ROGERS' purported federal criminal history to the LEES when it sold 9 them a knowingly false, rnisleading, and deceptive federal criminal history report on ROGERS 10 that contained a list of five (5) federal criminal cases (set forth in detail herein above). 11 12 69. The false, misleading, and deceptive federal criminal history report on ROGERS that 13 INTELIUS sold to the LEES contained knowingly false and defamatory statements that 14 indicated ROGERS was a federal criminal defendant in at least one, and possibly even all five 15 the federal criminal cases included in the report. 16 70. INTELIUS developed and created the defamatory statements on their own accord and 17 18 they did not republish third party content. INTELIUS's knowingly false, reckless and 19 defamatory statement that ROGERS could be the federal criminal defendant in any, and 20 potentially all of the five (5) cases included said report was information created developed and 21 published solely on its own accord as no other third party content accused, implied, indicated, or 22 23 even hinted or suggested that ROGERS was a federal criminal defendant in any federal criminal 24 case. 25 71. The LEES reasonably understood that said statements were about ROGERS. 26 72. The LEES reasonably understood the statements to mean that ROGERS had committed a 27 crime. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE No. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 22 of 52 73. INTELIUS failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of said 2 statements because INTELIUS knew or should have known that said statements were false. 3 74. When the LEES accepted 1NTELIUS's up-sell offer to seil them a federal criminal 4 history report on ROGERS, INTELIUS, on its own accord and volition, utilizing their own 6 proprietary soflware, algorithms, analytics and data an, withoat reliance on information 7 provided by a third party, created, developed, published, and provided the LEES over the 8 intennet with information, contained in a federal criminal background report on ROGERS, that 9 INTELIUS knew was false, untrue, fraudulent, misleading and deceptive, that included but was 10 not limited to the following false and defamatory statements; to wit: "Possible Federal 11 12 Criminal Records - One or cnore of these retords may be t6e Jason Rogers you selected. " 13 75. Prior to selling the LEES said federal criminal history report on ROGERS, INTELIUS 14 I lmew JASOAi MYUING RQGERS was never a Defendant in any federal criminal case because 15 they knew ROGERS birthdate and name which were different then the birthdates and names of 16 any of the defendants in the five, abovementioned, federal criminal cases that were included in 17 18, said report. 19 76. Brian Lee then utilized and relied upon INTELIUS's above-stated wrongful conduct and 20 published to numerous third parties, including RQGERS' neighbors, landlord/employer, San 21 Francisco City and Distriet Attorneys and numerous SFPD officers, the falsely created and 22 developed, misleading and deceptive information he received from INTELIUS, to wit Mr. LEE 23 24 sent numerous emails stating that Rogers was the criminal defendant in Arkansas Eastern 25 District Court (AR); in the case entitled ZTSA v. JASON. M. RDGERS; Case Number 4: 2006-cr- 26 00248 and that he "threatened to kill a federal judge and his family in 2006. (information Brian 27 Lee found by researching the case number sold to him by INTELNS" 28 FIRST AMENDED CQAAPI.AIIVT CASE Nd. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 23 of 52 l 1 77. IlVTELIUS's wrongful conduct, set forth in detail above, was a substantial contributing 2 factor in causing ROGERS ta suffer shame, mortification, humiliation, hurt feelings, extreme 3 mental and emotional distress, anxiety, as well as physical and financial injury, and is therefore 4 entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount greater than the jurisdictional 5 6 minimum of this Court, to be proved at trial. 7 78. In addition, ROGERS is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages because 8 INTELIUS's conduct, as is set forth in detail hereinabove, was crirninal, malicious, firaudulent, 9 deceptive, oppressive, motivated and driven by a relentless and calculated desire to increase its 10 monetary profits while knowing that it was exposing ROGERS to a highly foreseeable risk of 11 12 serious harm. 13 TNiRD CAUSE UF ACTI4N 14 (General Negligence against INTELIUS AND DOES 1-20) 15 79. ROGERS incorporates, as though realleged herein, each allegation set fortb in lb paragraphs 1 through 78. 17 18 80. INTELIUS had the du4y, and was required, to exercise ordinary due care to avoid 19 exposing ROGERS to any unreasonable risk of harm and to prevent its conduct from wrongfully 20 injuring or causing him to suffer harm, injury or damages. 21 81. INTELIUS breached the duty of ordinary due care it owed to RUGERS by conunitting a 22 23 series of negligent acts of conduct as hereinabove set forth in detail. 24 82. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 669 the failure to exercise due care is presumed if the 25 Defendant (1) violated a statute; (2) the violation proximately caused injury to the Plaintiff; (3) 26 the injury resulted from huuman occurrence the nature of which the statute was designed to 27 prevent; (4) ffie Plaintiff suffering the injury was one of the class of persons for whose protection 28 PIRST AMEAtDED COMPLAINT CASENO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 24 of 52 1 the statute was adopted. 2 83. INTELIUS, in doing the acts set forth in detail hereinabove, acted in a manner that a 3 reasonable person who desired to comply with the law, would not do, and in so doing violated 4 two (2) Califonzia code sections, to wit: 5 6 1. Civil Code section 45, libel per se; and 7 2. Penal Code Section 532 8 The injuries and damages suffered by RQGERS resulted from occurrences the nature 9 which the above-referenced statutes were designed t,o prevent. 10 84. INTELIUS, in doing the negligent acts set forth in detail hereinabove, was and is a 11 12 driven, multi-billion-dollar business with millions of customers in every state in America, that 13 has access to vast and unlimited information services, comprised of a collection of more than 15 14 billion public and publicly available, as well as connmercially available, records about people, 15 businesses, governments and financial assets. INTELIUS, in addition, advertises it has at its 16 command, and utilizes, advanced, sophisticated and highly innovative technologies to 17 18 dynamically access, manage, integrate, cleanse and validate massive amounts of data, in real 19 time, that it provides to its customers. 20 85. INTELIUS, in doing the negligent acts set forth in detail hereinabove, violated its duty 21 exercise due care owed to ROGERS and negligently failed to properly utilize the advanced, 22 23 sophisticated and highly innovative technologies it had at its command, as well as the access it 24 has to vast and unlimited information, comprised of a collection of more than 15 billion public 25 and publicly available, as well as commercially available, records about people, businesses, 26 governments and financial assets that enables it to dynamically access, manage, integrate, 27 cleanse and validate massive amounts of data, when it negligently provided the false federal 28 FIRST AMENDED Ct7MPLAItdT CASE No. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 25 of 52 criminal history report regarding ROGERS to the LEEs, as set forth herein above. 2 86. As a direct and proximate result of INTELIUS's conduct and acts of negligence, 3 ROGERS suffered and continues to suffer, humiliation, extreme mental and emotional distress, 4 depression, anxiety, PTSD, as well as physical and financial injury and is therefore entitled to S 6 general and compensatory damages in an amount greater than the jurisd:ictional minimum of this 7 Court, to be proved at trial. 8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (Violation of False or Misleading AdverHsing - Business and Professional Code 10 seMalon 17500, et seg. on behalf of Plalntiff and Class Memhers Who Reside Across the 11 12 United States against INTELIUS AND DOES 1-20) 13 87. ROGERS incorporates, as though realleged herein, each and every allegation set forth in 14 paragraphs 1 through 27. 15 88. Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq. prohibits various deceptive 16 practices and conduct in connection with the dissemination in any manner of representation 17 18 which are likely to deceive members of the public to purchase products and or services such as 19 Federal Crinunal BackgroundlHistory Reports offered by Defendants. 20 89. Defendants' acts, practices, and conduct described herein have deceived and or are likely 21 to deceive Plaintiffand Class Mernbers. Defendant advertises its service, to purchase a Federal 22 23 Criminal Background Report to each and every customer who purchases a basic and or entry 24 level background report and does so even if the individual whom their customer is researching 25 has no such federal criminal history to report on. Because Intelius advertises on it's website that 26 it sells, "The most accurate and updated information from billions of records," and that its People 27 Search services allow its customers to find, "more info...on a person," it deceives the public and 28 FUtST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE AtO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 26 of 52 its customers into believing that they are only purchasing accurate information and INTELNS is 2 also falsely implying that if it offers to sell a Federal Criminal Background on a person that 3 person actually has a federal criminal background, when the truth is that it offers to sell Federal 4 Criminal Background Reports on every pecson researched by its customers, whether or not that 5 6 individual actualiy has a federal criminal history. And if the customer accepts INTELIUS's 7 solicitation to purchase said report and the individual has no federal criminal history 1"NTELIUS 8 manufactures a false, deceptive and misleading Federal Criminal History Report listing at least 9 five federal criminal cases that they say "may" or "might" be associated with the individual la being researched. INTELIt1S creates these false, deceptive, misleading, and defamatory Federal 11 12 Criminal History Reports even though they know or should know that the individual has no 13 federal criminal history and utilizes false and mislead'utg advertising to sell this fake, deceptive, 14 and defamatory product ls 90. INTELIUS has also published an Investor Prospectus wherein INTELIUS wrongfuliy 16 and knowingly misinforms the public that it utilizes cutting edge soflware and algorithms to 17 18 ensure that the information they sell is accurate, timely, actionable and useable, when in fact th 19 knowingly sell false, deceptive, and defamatory Federal Criminal Background/History Reports 20 on individuals they know or should know have no such federal criminal histories. 21 91. Defendant intended that Brian and Jean Lee, Plaintiff (as a member of the general 22 23 public), and Class members to rely upon the false and misleading advertisements as set forth in 24 this Complaint, and in fact Brian and Jean Lee and Class members did rely upon said 25 advertisements and misrepresentations to their detriment. 26 92. INTELIUS's wrongful acts, strategies, conduct and conntpt business practices and false 27 and misleading advertisling as set forth in detail hereinabove, of making knowa fraudulent, 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CCC-18-571624 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 27 of 52 false, misleading and deceptive statements and/or representations of fact during the transaction 2 process, especially with repeat customers, like JEAN LEE, by offering false, deceptive, 3 misleading, aad defamatory Federal Criminal Background Reports is a frandulent business 4 practice in vlolation of 8usiness and Professional Code section .17500 et seq., Penal Code 5 6 Section 532, and Civil Code §45, and Is perpetrated via false and misleading advertising. 7 93. INTELiUS knew t6at there were absolutely no Federal criminal records, no data $ and no evidence, of any kinci, that showed that ROGERS was possibly, or even may have been, 9 involved in, charged with, indicted for or convicted of, any federal crime, in any Federal Court 10 the Unit.ed States of America. INTELIUS, pursuant to its comxpt and unnlawful business model, 11 12 practice, strategy, scheme and plan of creating, developing and publishing false criminal 13 background infonnation intended and designed to maacimize their revenue per customer, then 14 created, developed and in response to the LEES' purchase requests for its services regarding 15 RO+GERS, provided them with a fraudulent, untrue, niisleading and deceptive and defamatory 16 federal criminal background report which the LEE's then used the defame and harm Plaintiffby 17 1$ publishing said false federal criminal background report to numerous San Francisco Police 19 Officers, the SF District Attorney's +Dffice, the SF City Attorney's Offiice, to his neighbors, to 20 landlord and the president of the HOA for the building he lived in. 21 94. INTELIUS knew that a11 the federal crimes listed in the Federal Criminal Background 22 23 Report on Plaintiff that they sold to the LEES as well as to other unknown customers did not 24 involve Plaintiff. For example, one of said cases, Case Number 4:2006-cr-00248 was in regard 25 criminal acts comnlitted by a Jason Michael RogerslManning because he, not Rogers, 26 "threatened to ki11 a federal judge and hi,s family in 2006," yet 1NTELIUS decided to defarae 27 Plaintiff and deceive the LEES by stating that Plaintiffrnay be the defendant in said case, even. 2$ FDtsT AMBNAED COMkLAINT CASE IVo. CGC-I8-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 28 of 52 though INTELIUS knew that the information it provided to the Lees was false, untrue, 2 deceptive, misleading, and defamatory.. 3 95. INTELIUS' wrongful acts, conduct, strategy and fraudulent business practices, as set 4 forth in detail hereinabove, substantially, directly and proximately caused ROGERS to suffer 5 6 extreme emotional, physical and mental distress and financial damages, in an amount in excess 7 of the jurisdictional minimum amount of this Court, to be proved at trial. 8 96. Defendant intended the Lees and Class member to rely upon the advertisements and 9 numerous materiai misrepresentations as set forth more fulty elsewhere in the Complaint. In fact,) 10 the LEES, and potentially other unknown INTELIUS customers who may have pwchased 11 12 background reports from Defendant about Plaintiff, did rely upon the advertisernents to their 13 detriment and the to detriment of Plaintiff who suffered enormously from INTELIUS's unfair, 14 unlawful, and fraudulent business practices and false and misleading advertising. 15 97. INTELIUS'S wrongful acts, corrupt conduct and fraudulent and criminal business 16 practices currently exposes and represents an on-going foreseeable risk of haarm to its millions of 17 18 customers and the general public, of serious financial, emotionai and physical injuries, and will 19 continue unabated into the future unless it is enjoined by this court. 20 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 (Unfair Competition in Violation of Business and Professional Code 22 23 section 17200, et seq. on behalf of PiaintiPf and Class Members Who Reside across the 24 United States against INTELIUS AND DOES 1-20) 25 98. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained above as if set forth 26 herein. 27 99. Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code ("UCL'I prohibits any 28 FItLST AMENDED COMP[.AITIT CASE N0. CGC-18-571520 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 29 of 52 "unlawfiil," "unfair," and "fraudulent" business practice. 2 100. Section 17200 specifically prohibits any "unlawful. ..business act or practice: ' 3 Defendant INTELIUS INC. has violated § 17200's prohibition against engaging in an unlawful 4 act or practice by inter alia, selling and or agreeing to selling Federal Criminal 5 6 BackgroundlHistory Reports for people that they know or should know have no such Federal 7 Criminal Background or History. 8 101. Defendants ongoing sale of knowingly false, deceptive, and defamatory Federal 9 Criminal Background Reports violates California Penal Code § 532 known as thetjt by false 10 pretenses because INTELIUS INC knowingly and designedly uses false representations to 11 12 obtain money from its unassuming customers every time it sells a Federal Criminal 13 BackgroundfHistory report on someone that INTELIUS knows or should know has never been a 14 defendant in a federal criminal prosecution. 15 102. This conduct also-violates Califomia Civil Code §45 because it is libel per se to 16 17 aceuse someone of committing a crime when that person has not committed any crime. 18 103. Section 17200 also prohibits any "unfair ... business act or practice." As described 19 in the preceding paragraphs, INTELIUS INC. engaged in the unfair business practice of selling 20 its customers knowingly false and untrue Federal Criminal Background/History Reports for 21 individuals that INTELIUS INC. knew, or should have known, had no such federal crinunal 22 23 histories or backgrounds, as was the case when INTELIUS IPr1C sold the LEEs a knowingly 24 false and deceptive Federal Criminal BackgroundlHistory Report about ROGERS. 25 104. Section 17200 also prohibits any ̀ fraudulent business act or practice." 26 Defendants violated this prong of the UCL by telling the public that they sell accurate, 27 actionable, and useable information on people and that they created soflware specifically for the 28 FIItST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 30 of 52 purpose of ensuring the accuracy of the information sold. Clearly, INTELIUS either does not 2 have said soflware or capabilities or does not utilize them because they knowingly sold false and 3 deceptive Federal Criminal Background Reports on people, like Plaintiff, that INTLIEUS INC. 4 either knew or should have icnown had no such federal criminal backgrounds. Further, 5 6 1NTELIUS violated this prong of the UCL by omitting material information about the Federal 7 Criminal Backgroimd Reports, with the intent to induce reliance by consumers to purchase said 8 reports. s 105. Furthermore, Defendant's business practices, as detailed above, are unethical, 10 oppressive, unscrupulous, and they violate fundamental policies of this State. Further, any 11 12 justifications for Defendant's wrongful conduct are clearly outweighed by the adverse effects of 13 such conduct. Thus, Defendant engaged in, and will continue to engage in, an unfair business 14 practice prohibited by § 17200 et seq. 15 106. Section 17200 also prohibits any "unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading 16 advertising. For the reasons set forth in detail hereinabove, Defendants engaged in said unfair, 17 18 untrue and or misleading advertisutg in violation of § 17200. 19 107. Additionally, pursuant to § 17203, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to 20 inunediately cease such acts of unlawful unfair and fraudulent business practices and to return 21 the full amount of money improperly collected to all those who have paid them. 22 REOUEST F'OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES UNDER THE 23 FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES QF ACTION AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIYE 24 RELIEF 25 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 26 108. Pluintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the factual allegations set 27 forth herein above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 28 109. INTELIUS advertises to the general public that it is a leading online internet FIItST AMII+iDEn CaMPLAtt3T CASE N0. CC,C-15-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 31 of 52 9i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 i ~ 21 22 i 23 ' i 24 I 25 i 26 27 ' 28 commercial enterprise that has sold information to over 30 million customers since its inception in 2003. 110. INTELIUS advertises to the general pubGc that it actively does business in every state in America. 111. INTELIUS advertises to t6e general publ{c that its information services are based on its vast collection of more than 15 billion (and growtng daily) public and publicly available, as well as connnercially available records about people, businesses, city, state and local governments and financial assets. 112. IN'TELIUS advertises to the general publlc that it utilizes advanced, sophisticated and innovative technologies to dynamically access, manage, integrate, cleanse and ~ validate massive amounts of data, in real time. 113. INTELTUS has a corcupt unlawful business strategy and practice, preniised on a &audulent business model, that it has successfully employed for over 15 years, specifically designed and calculated to defraud, induce and entice its unsuspecting customers, like the LF.ES, to purchase costly and unnecessary services based on fraudulent, untrue, deceptive and misleading inforniation, that it creates, develops and publishes on its own initiative and accord, that is not based on information it receives from third party sources. Said unlawfui business practice was and is in violatlon of Penal Code Section 532 or theft by false pretenses. 114. Ir1TELIUS has successfully utilized and ernployed this comipt, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business strategy and practice for over 15 years and has undoubtedly bilked, defrauded and deceived millions of its trusting, naive customers, who unwittingly were deceived and reasonably relied on the misleading information they were provided, out of millions of FIRST AM6NDED COMPLAINT CASE 1VU, CGCw18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 32 of 52 dollars, while also foreseeably and knowingly exposing and putting countless numbers of 2 innocent, unsuspecting third parties at risk of severe injury as a consequence of the fraudulently 3 misleading, false information it has created, developed and distributed. 4 115. The degree and amount of harm INTELNS's has caused via their corrupt 5 6 business practice of selling false, misleading, deceptive and defamatory federal criniinal history 7 reports for people who they know have no such criminal history, may never be completely 8 ( ascertained, however what is known is that INTELIUS continues unabated with said business 9 practice and actively and continuously sells false federal criminal. histories on innocent and 10 unsuspecting people who may have been defamed, who may have lost their jobs or not been ll 12 hired for a job they recently applied for. 13 116. Therefore, ROGERS requests that this court enter injunctive relief by ordering 14 that INTELIUS immediately cease and desist with their practice of selling federal criminal 15 history reports for indlviduals that do not have any such crlminal history. 16 17 117. INTELIUS has access to both the information and to their proprietary soflware 18 algorithms and analytics, designed specifically so that they sell only timely, accurate, and 19 actionable information, which is everything IlVTELIUS needs to ensure they don't sell one more) 20 false federal criminal background report to any customer ever again. 21 118. The costs said injunctive relief would impose on INTELIUS, which earns yearly 22 23 revenues of around $ 175 million dollars (according to at least one internet website known as 24 crunchbase), would be de minrmus and the equities heavily favor awarding said injunction 25 because the risk of harming innocent individuals is not theoretical but actual and even highly 26 probable, as INTELIUS has admitted, stating that litigation based on selling false infonmation 27 posed and continues to pose a substantial risk to the value and growth of the company. 28 PQtST AMENDEa COMPL.AINT CASE NO. CGC-18-571 620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 33 of 52 ( EXEMPLARYlPUN.ITIVE DAMAGES 119. ROGEItS has suffered extrerne emotional and mental distress and loss of income I as an unsuspecting innocent victim of INTELIUS's malicious, oppressive and fraudulent ( conduct explained herein. 124. The wrongfui acts, corrupt, deceptive and unlawfal business practices and I conduct of INTELIUS and Does 1-20 and each of them, as set forth in detail hereinabove, was ( calculated, extreme, outrageous and lieyond the scope of conduct that should be tolerated in 9 ( eivilized society. INTELIUS's conduct was criminal, intentional, malicious, oppressive, and 10 I wantonly fraudulent, designed, calculated and based on a comipt business model, solely 11 12 I premised on a strategy to increasc the monetary profits and market share of this highly 13 I sophisticated, fiercely competitive, billion-dollar corporation, at the expense of a known and 14 I foreseeable risk of harm to its customers and the general public. 15 121. Malice means that a defendant acted with either intent to cause injury or that a 16 C defendant's conduct was despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of the 17 18 I rights or safety of another. 19 122. A defendant acts with "knowing disregard" when the defendant is aware of the 20 I probable dangerous consequences ofhis, her or its conduct and deliberately fails to avoid those 21 iconsequences. 22 123. INTELIUS's conduct satisfies the definition for both malice and knowing 23 24 disregard. By intentionally selling the LEES and countless other customers false federal criminal' 25 history reports, that INTELIUS knows or should know are false and that they know may and 26 have resulted in severe and devastating injuries and harm to those people wrongfully accused of ' 27 having a federal criminal history, like ROGERS, and that INTELIUS continues to engage in 28 ` F1RST AMSNDBU C,OMPLAINT i GASE NO: CGC-I8-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 34 of 52 1 said conduct in spite of said risk simply because it produces millions of dollars of revenue, it is 2 manifest that INTELIUS engages in malicious and despicable conduct and does so with a 3 willful, knowing, and reckless disreggard for the harm and injuries it may cause innocent and 4 unsuspecting individuals, such as those incurred by Plaintiff and that form the basis of this 5 lawsuit. 6 7 124. Accordingly, INTELIUS should be assessed appropriate punitive and exemplary I 8 I damages commensurate with the enormous scope of the monetary as well as emotional harm it 9 ( has maliciously inflicted on the general public, including Plaintiff, over the past 15 years. 10 125. While the overall value of INTELIUS is not currently known by Plaintiff, 11 12 I Plaintiff is aware that in 2008 INTELIUS was planning on going forward with an IPO which it 13 I valued at of $143,750,000.00, and that in 2015 INTELIUS was acquired by a private equity 14 I for an amount greater than $100 million dollars. While said IPO was ulti.mately withdrawn, now, 15 I almost 10 years later it is conceivable that the value of INTELIUS is worth substantially more. 16 I One website, htlgs://crunchbase.com lists INTELNS*s yearly revenue at $175 million dollars. 17 18 I is possible Intelius is now a billion-doilar corporation and their sheer enormity and size should 19 I inform the court and or jury what a meaningful and appropriate punitive damages award number ! 20 I would be. 21 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 22 23 Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the general public, prays for judgment and relief 24 I against INTELIUS and Does 1-20, as follows: 25 126. UNDER THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION for 26 Intentional Infliction of Mental distress against INTELIUS AND DOES 1-20 27 A. For general and compensatory damages for the emotional distress 28 I F1RST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASEN4. CGC-I$-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 35 of 52 1 injuries, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, and pain and suffering 2 incuirred by ROGERS and which he will continue to incur, in an 3 amount to be proved at trial. 4 B. For special damages for medical expenses and loss of incorae incurred 5 by ROGERS and which he will continue to incur, in an amount to be b 7 proved at trial. $ C. For punitive and exemplary damages in an. amount to be proved at g trial, 10 D. For costs of suit. 11 lZ E. For other damages that the Court deems proper and just. 13 127. UNDER THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONc Libel Per Se against ; ~ 14 INTELIUS AND DOES 1-20 15 A. For general and compensatory damages for the emotional distress 16 injuries, pain and suffering incurred by ROGERS and which he will 17 18 continue to incur, in an amount to be proved at trial. lg B. For special damages for medical expenses and loss of income ineunred 24 by ROGERS and which he will continue to incur, in an amount to be 21 proved at triaL 22 C. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be proved at 23 24 trial. 25 D. For costs of suit. 26 E. For other damages that the Court deems proper and just. 27 128. UNDER TEIE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: f'ieneral Negligence against 28 FI[ts7 AMfiNDED COMPLAINT CASE NA. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 36 of 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' 27 28 i INTELIUS AND DC}ES 1-20. A. For general and compensatory damages for the emotional distress injuries, pain and suffering incurred by ROGERS and which he witl continue to incur, in an amount to be proved at trial. B. For special damages for medical expenses and loss of income incurred by ROGERS and which he will continue to incur, in an amount to be proved at trial. C. For costs of suit. D. For other damages that the Court deems proper and just 129. UNDER THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION for Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17500 against INTELIUS DOES 1-20 A. For injunctive relief to enjoin Intelius from offering and providing false, misleading and fraudulent infonmation to its customers pursuant I to it unlawful business practice and strategy.* See Below. B. For private attomey general fees pursuant to CCP section 1021.5, in I an amount to be proved at trial. C. Restitution D. For costs of suit. E. For other damages that the Court deems proper and just. 130. UNDER THE FIFTII CAUSE OF ACTION for Violation of Califonua Business and Professions Code § 17200 against INTELIUS DOES 1-20 FUtST AMBNDED COMPLAINT CASE IVO. CGC-18-571628 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 37 of 52 1 2' 3i 4I 5~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 26 ~ 27 ' 28 i A. For injunctive relief to enjoin Intelltus from offering and providing false, misleading and firaudulent information to its customers pursuant to it unlawful business practice and strategy. B. For privat.e attomey general fees pursuant to CCP section 1021.5, in ' an amount to be proved at trial. C. Restitution D. For costs of suit. E. For other damages that the Court deems proper and just. 131. *** Causes of Action Four (B&P 17500) and Five (B&P 17200)** For a stay, temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and pennanent injunction prohibiting and enjoining INTELIUS from offering to sell and or selling any federal crinunal history reports to its customers when the individual who is being researched has no federal criminal history to reporL Because Intelius has both the huge cache of data, resources and information, as well as their I own proprietary soflware, algorithms and analytics specifically designed to ensure timely, accurate and actionable date is published and or sold to customers there is essentially no costs ~ incuurred by Intelius to detennine if an individual has a federal criminal history, and if said individual does not have said hist.cny, INTELIIJS should be prohibited from oPfering to sell or selling a false, misleading, and deceptive criminal history report in in regard to any such person ' who lacks said history. Even if there is some cost associated with determining whether or not, in fact, the individual being researched by INTELIUS's customer does have a federal criminal history to report, said cost is and would be greatly outweighed in eomparison to the potential harm caused by selling a false, misleading, and deceptive Federai Criminal Background/History FQtsT AMENDEU COMALAIIVT CASE NO. CGC-18-571620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 38 of 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 - 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Regort on an individual with no such history or ba.ckground. Datcd: 1/2J2019 /S/ Ronald M. Toran Ronald M. Taran Attorney for JASON MYUNG ROGERS I FIItST AMENDEn COMPLAiNT CASE TtO. CGC-IS-S71620 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 39 of 52 SUPERIQR COURT OF CALIFt3RNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCtSCO 400 MCALLlSTER STREET, SAN FRANCtSCO, CA 94102-4514 JASON MYUNG ROGERS VS. iNTELLiUS INC et ai Case Management Department 610 Case Management fJrder PLAfNTIFF (S) NCJ. CGC-18-571620 Order Continuing Case OEFENDANT (S) Management Conference TO: ALL COUNSEL AND SELF-REPRESENTED LiT1GANTS The May-01-2019 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is canceied, and it is hereby ordered: This case is set for a case management conference on Jun-12-2019 in Department 610 at 10:30 am. CRC 3.725 requires the fiiing and sen+ice of a case management statement forrn CM-110 no iater than fifteen (15) days before the case management conference. However, it wouid facifitate the issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the case management conference if the case management statement is fiied, served and iodged in Department 610 twenty-five (25) days before the case managernent conference. PLAiNTiFF(S) must serve a copy of this no#ice on aii parties not iisted on the attached proof of senrice within five (5) days of the date of this order. DATED: APR-12-2019 GARRETT L. WONG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 40 of 52 ATTORNEY OR PAKTY WITFIOUi AT70RNEY lManre. BPste Ber nuarAey, an0 aatfis8ak Ronald M. Toran 84027 Z64 20tfi Avenue San Francisco, CA 94121 TELEP"M NO. : (415)919-9033 FAX "O (0~- MAK AOMSS jQpWmQ- rmt{ultoranlawsf.com ArnoRNEY FoR (mwwj: dason Myung Rogers SUPEitIOR COtJRY OF CAUFDRHW, COUlit'Y CF SaT! FfariciSCQ 8TREETADm" 400 McAllister St MAI► Ndf3 ADatESS- cmr ArwziP com: San Francisco, AC 94102 9RAwA4 "AW Unlimited Jurisdiction PIAiNTIFFIpETit'IONER: Jason MyimR Rogera DEFENaANTIREsPONDErvr: PeopleConne,ct, Inc., d/bJa Intelius NOTiCE OF ENTRY CfF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (Check one): © UNLiMITEO CASE LtNU7ED CASE (A+toernt demanced (Amount dentanded was enceeded $25,000) $►25,000 oc less) [rr_'~ CASE tdU1d8ER• CGC-18-571620 TO Al.t. PARTtE3 : 1. A judgment, decn3e, or orier was entered in this adion on (date): April 16, 2019 2. A cwpy of tlte jtdgment, decree. or orrW is ettached to this nodce. Daoe: ~ 29, 2D19 ~ ....,..:._..,_..._ Ronald M. Toran (TYPE OR PAMIT NAMtE OF ATTOMEY PARTY 1MTNOUT ATtOiiNEY) Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 41 of 52 C] NAMEt~Tt:1.EPJiQNE MMBER OF A'!T'ORNEY~T"+y ~6 ;Z'~4` ~✓t' ~AA v ~ SP~FOR tOLRT 118E +OV1B.Y ANlENDiMEirT TO SUPERlOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COMPLAW7 COl3NTY OF SAN FRANCiSCO ns. r--~ ._1 (14,~~',~,.~ Piaintilf(s) Oefendant(s INCORRECT NAME: [Section 473 (a) (1) C.C.P.] Ptefndfi(s) hairMg designeted a detertdant in the cmplatnt by ttte incannect neme af Ap v. ce c- -Z)!t C - and '' c~eoaie~d / t!̂~`s tn3e ~ c~f t k! ~fe he sandant to be 1 ~~Q ~n \ s7► A !► A L.r n c~_ _ .~ ~~ / a ~ "TL~-~, t,. hetebir arrrend(s)tthe r.csosint by inseit#ng axh ttue name tn piace enl steod of such Mconer;t rwe whenaver k eomrs M asid aampkft ?:j~ycj DATB J AttoraWs) tor Plaintiff ORDER Good couee sppearing, Ve abive amenc~rrent to the cornplaunt is atiaMred. F1011 pNAENpIYJENT TO CEMPLAINT ftv i?Jtl9 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 42 of 52 - DO NOT FILE W9TH THE COURT- C4% -UNLESS YOU ARE APPLYING FOR A DEFAULT JtlDGMENT UNDER CODE OF CINIL PROCEDURE § g85 - ATTORK1' oR PARTY 1MTME}UT ATTQRNEY (Akvrre 8nd ApdM}~ Ronald 1V1. Toran 264 20th Ave. San Francisco, CA 94121 TELEPFtONE Np.' (415)919-9033 FOR COUR7 USE oNL Y ATTORMEY FOi (rtenb)- SUPERtC3R COURT OF CALIFORNW COUNTIf OF 8TREETADORE88: MMlJNCi ADORE8S. CITY ANO ZIP COOE: eRANCFt NAME. PtA1NTIFF: DEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER: (Penawnai injury or Wrongtul Death) CGC-1 s-571620 To (rneme of one ae*xiant only): PeopleConnect Inc., d/b/a! Intelius Fuintiff (name of one pt~ ar►!y): Jason Myung Rogers sedcs damages in ths abrnre-entitied actian, as foltows: 1. t3atwa1 damages AMOUNT a. ED Pain, suffering, and inoonverience .......................................................................... ......... ........ a b. M Emotronal disttress . ............................................................................................................................. E 250,000 c. 0 Loss of cosnswtium ............................................................................................................................. $ d. ED Loss of sodey and companronship (wrongtui cfeatn actions onJy) ......................................... .. ....... $ e. 21 ooer (spcy) Loss of reputation. Shame, hurt feelino .. $100,000 f. ED othw (gvG►h) ..............................................,................................................................................... s Contlnued on Attachment 1.g. 2. Speafal dameges a. 0 Mediml expenses (to dete) ................ .......................................................................................... g 15,000 b. M Futw+e medical eVenses (Piesam value) ......................................................:.................................. tb 25,000 c. ® Loss of earnatgs (to date)......................... .......................................................................................... $ 25,Q00 d. O Loss of future earntng CBPcxtY (Prssent vatue) ................................................................................. s e. = PropeRy damsge ................................................................................................................................ $ f. Funeral expenses (wrongfud death actrons onty) ............................................................................... Z g. Future axntribulms (present value) (wrorx/hrl rteath adions only).................................... ............. ... a h. 0 Vatue of penxmal smioe, aulvice, or training (wrvnghrl death actions cmly) ..................................... $ i. 0 Qther (4m*) .................................................................................................................................. $ J. 0 Other (Wec&) .................................................................................................................................. $ k. CoMinued on Attachment 2.k. 3. .n~. Punitive dansages: PlaintifF resenres the right to seek punitive damages in the amount of (s cify).. s 3sQ00,004 wlen pursuing a"merd in the suit filed against you. ^_ oate: April 29, 2019 ~ ~ Ronald M. Toran eTVm Ao On1YT uauc, ...,......,.....C. ....-.-- Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 43 of 52 Superior Court of Catifornia, County of San Francisco Atternative Dispute Resotution Information Package WNAT tS ADR? Aiternative Dispute Resoiution (ADR) is the term used to describe the var'ious options available for settling a dispute without a triai. There are many different ADR processes, the most common forms of which are mediation, arbitration and settlement conferences. in ADR, trained, impartiai peopie dec.ide disputes or heip parties decide disputes themselves. They can heip parties resolve disputes without having to go to triai. WHY CHOOSE ADR? it is the policy of the Superior Court that every iong cause, non-criminal, non-juveniie case should participate either in an eariy settiement conference, mediation, arbitration, eariy neutrai evaivation or some other alternative dispute resolution process prior to trial. (i.ocal Rule 4.) ADR can have a number of advantages over traditional titigation: • ADR can save ttme. A dispute often can be resoived in a matter of months, even weeks, through ADR, whiie a lawsuit can take years. • ADR can ssve money, including court costs, attorney fees, and expert fees. • ADR encoaraages participation. The parties may have more opportunities to teil their story than in court and may have rnore control over the outcome of the case. • ADR is more satisfying. For aq the above reasons, many peopie participating in ADR have reported a high degree of satisfaction.. "ElWing t4 aarticioate in an ADR arocess does not stoQ t~e time period to Wpond to a cornplaint or cross-complaint:* WNAT ARE THE ADR tUPT1QhiS? The San Francisco Super'ior Gourt offers different types of ADR processes for general civil matters. 'fhe programs are described beiow: 1) MANDA7MY SE'TTLEMENT CQNFERENCES Settlement conferences are appropriate in any case where settlement is an option. The goal of settiement conferences is to provide participants an opportunity to reach a mutuafiy acceptable settlement that resoives ali or part of a dispute. Mandatory settlement conferences are ordered by the court and are often heki near the date a case is set for trial, atthough they may be held earlier if appropriate. A party may eiect to appiy to the Presiding ludge for a speciaily set mandatory settiement conference by filing an ex parte application. See Local Rute 5.0 for further instructions. Upon approvai by the Presiding ludge, the court wiil scheduie the conference and assign a settlement conference officer. Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 44 of 52 2) MEDtATION Mediation is a voluntary, fiexibie, and confidential process in which a neutral third party facilitates negotiations. The goai of inediation is to reach a mutualiy satisfactory agreement that resolves all or part of a dispute after exploring the interests, needs, and prbrities of the parties in light of relevant evidence and the law. (A) MEDIATiGN SERVICES C1F THE 8AR ASSOCIATiON t?F SAN FRANCISCO (BASF), in cooperatlon with the Superior Court, is designed to heip civil litigants resolve disputes before they incur substantial costs in litigation. While it is best to utilize the program at the outset of litigation, parties may use the program at any time whiie a case is pending. Experienced professional mediators work with parties to arrive at a mutually agreeabie solution. The mediators provide one hour of preparation time and the first two hours of inediation time. Mediation time beyond that is charged at the mediator's houriy rate. BASF pre-screens all mediators based upon strict educadonal and experience requirements. Parties can select their mediator from the paneis at www.sfbar.orR/mediation or BASF can assist with medlator selection. SASF staff handles confiict checks and full case management. The success rate for the program is 5796 and the satisfaction rate is 99%. BASF charges an administrative fee of $295 per party. The houriy mediator fee beyond the flrst three hours wiil vary depending on the mediator selected. Vltaivers of the fee are available to those who quaiify. For more information, call 415-982-1600 or email adrOsfbar.ore. (B) IUDIC1Al MEDtATIOfri PROGRAM provides mediation with a San Francisco Superior Court judge for civil cases, which inciude but are not limited to, personal injury, construction defect, employment, professwnal malpractice, insurance coverage, toxic torts and industr'ial accidents. Parties may utilize this program at any time throughout the iitigation process. Parties interested in judicial mediation shouid file a Stipulation to ludicia) Mediation indicating a joint request for indusion in the program. A preference for a specific judge may be indicated. The court will coordinate assignment of cases for the program. There is no charge. Information about the 3udicial Mediation Program may be found by visiting the ADR page on the court's website: www.sfsuperioEEourt-orit/divisionsicivil/disgMte-resolution (C) PRtVATE MEDIATION: Although not currently a part of the court's ADR program, parties may seiect any private mediator of their choice. The selection and coordination of private mediation is the responsibility of the parties. Parties may find mediators and organizations on the Internet. The cost of private mediation wiil vary depending on the mediator selected. (D) COMMUNiTY 80ARDS MEDIATION SERVtCES: Mediation services are offered by Community 8oards (CB), a nonprofit resoiution center, under the Dispute Resolution Programs Act. C9 utilizes a three-person panei mediatton process in which mediators work as a team to assist the parties in reaching a shared soiution. To the extent possible, mediators are selected to reflect the demographics of the disputants. CB has a success rate of 8596 for parties reaching a resolution and a oonsumer satisfaction rate of 9996. The fee is $45-$100 to open a case, and an hourly rate of $180 for complex cases. Reduction and waiver of the fee are available. For more information, caii 415-920-3828 or visit comm ny itvbQards.ora. Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 45 of 52 3) ARBITRATHIN An arbitrator is a neutral attorney who presides at a hearing where the parties present evidence through enhihits and testimony. The arbitrator appfies the law to the facts of the case and makes an award based upon the merits of the case. (A) JUDICUIL ARBITRA'CION When the court orders a case to arbitration it is caiied "judiciai arbitration". The goai of arbitration is to provide parties with an adjudication that is eariier, faster, iess formai, and usualiy less expensive than a triai. Purwant to CCP 1141.11, all civii actions in which the amount in controversy is $50,000 or iess, and no party seeks equitabie relief, shali be ordered to arbitration. (Upon stipulation of aii parties, other dvii rnatters may be submitted to ]udicial arbitration.) An arbitrator is chosen from the court's arbitration panel. Arbitrations are generalty held between 7 and 9 months after a comptaint has been fiied. ludiciai arbitration is not binding uniess ail parties agree to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. Any party may request a trial within 60 days after the arbitrator's award has been fited. tocal Rule 4.1 ailows for mediation in iieu of judiciai arbitration, so long as the parties fiie a stipulation to mediate after being assigned to judiciai arbitration. There is no cost to the parties for judiciai arbitration. (6) pRiYATE AR6ITRATION Ahhough not currentty a part of the court's ADR program, civil disputes may aiso be resoived through private arbitration. Here, the parties voluntarily consent to arbitration. If ail parties agree, private arbitration may be binding and the parties give up the right to judiciai review of the arbitrator's decision. In private arbitration, the parties seiect a private arbitrator and are responsible for paying the arbitrator's fees. HQW DO I PARTIOPATE IN AWt? litigants may eiect to participate in ADR at ariy point in a case. General civii cases may voluntarily enter into the court's or court-afflliated ADR programs by any of the foilowing means: • Fiiing a 5tipulation to ADR: Compiete and file the Stipuiation form (attached to this packet and avaiiable on the court's website); or • Indicating your ADR preferences on the Case Management Statement (availabie on the court's website); or • Contacting the court's ADR Department (see beiow), the Bar Association of San Francisco's ADR Services, or Community Boards. For r»we tnfarmation about ADR programs or dispute resalutian alternattves, contact: Superior Court Aiternatnre Dispute Resoiution 400 McAiiister Street, Room 103-A, San Francisco, CA 94102 415-551-3$69' Or, visit the court's ADR page at www.sfsuneriorcourt.oraldivisionslcivilldisnute-resolution TO PART{CIPATE 1N ANY OF THE COURT'S ADR PROGRAMS, PLEASE COMPLETE AND FiLE THE ATfACHED STIPUWTION TO ADR AND SUBMiT IT TO THE COURT, YQU MUST ALSO CONTA _ BAIF QF~ CQM MUNt7Y BOAROS TO LL I TH iR 15T P OGRAMS. TH URT DO S NO FORWARD F STIPULATIONS TO BASF OR CO(VlMUNITY 80ARD5. Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 46 of 52 TELEPMpNE NO.: A7TdRNEY Ft1R tNemy: 100 Ma49hler SWOeR S1n FtYnG*co, CA 84102-1514 DEFENQANt1RESPOAtUENT: S1fPUlATtOld TO ALTERFfATNE DI$PU'fE RE8oLUTtoN (ADR) ( CASE NUMBER: 1) 'the pardea henaby stipuiata that this action shaM bs submitt®d t,o the fnitowing ADR process: [3 wdiawn Services of the Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) - Exter►enoed professianai mediatars, sere and approved, proxide one hour of preparation and ttre fust two hourrs of inediation time for a BASF administrative b $295 per party. Mediation time beyond that is charged at the mediator's houdy rate. Waivers of the achninietral3ve fet avaftie to those who quafify. BASF assists parfios vvith mediator seiecdon, cxoMiicts ch®cks. and fu{I case manage www. stbar. orl}lmediation [~ lllediatlon $ervlcss of Coinrnnunity Boarts (CB) - Service in conjuncaon with DRPA, CB pmvides caae daveioprr►ent an three-hour mediation session. Additionai sessions may be sdfeduted. The cost is$45-$100 to open a case, and an hourl of $180 for cornpiex caaes. Reduction and waiver of the fee are avaitable to those who quaiify. communiryboards.orQ 0 Private Mediation - Medators and ADR {ravider organizations charge by the hour or by the day, cumsni market nfts. a organizations may also charge an administiretive fee. Parties may find experienced medators and organizadons on the htterr E3 Judiciat Arbitratton - Non-binding arbitra6on fs avaiiabie to cases in which the amount in controversy is $50,000 or ies no equitabie reiief is sought The court appoints a pre-sa'eened arbitrator who arill issue an awa►d. Thare is no 0 thfs program. www.sfsupertorcourt.orgldisnsionslciviNdispute-resotution 0 Judicial Mediatfon - The Judiciat Mediatlon program offers mediation in civii iiiigabon vvrth a San Francisco St Court judge famiiiar with the area of tfie law that is the subject of the conb+oversy. There is no fee #or this pn www.sfsupQriorcourt,org/divisionslciviVdispute-resaiution Jldge RequeSied (see iist of Judges cxurently participating in the program): Date range requested for .tud'+dai Mediation (fnorn the filing of stiputation to Judicial Mediation): 0 30-90 days C19o-1aa days Cl other (piease spec►fy) E3 Othsr ADR procesa (describe) 2) The partes a0ree that the ADR Process shaii be cornpleteui by (date): 3) Plaintilt(s) and Doendant(s) further agree as foifows: Name of Party Stipuiating Name of Party or Attomey Execiting Stipuiation Signature of Party or Attorney M PiaintiN Q Defendant Q Cross-defendant Name of Party Stipulattrg Name of Party or Attomey E.xecxuting Stipulation Signature of Party or Attonney [Q Piaintiff Q Defendant M Cross-defendant Dat+ed: © adclitfonal stgnatvre(s) attach+sd Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 47 of 52 CM-110 (Nam. Siam and ***M)thn aid M. Toran 20th Avenue Francisca, CA 94121 TELErrma Na.: (415)919-9033 FAx No. rOpho'AWx EAAAItA00ftEss(Qptiaiffi}: rmt@toraniaW$f.Com AnaRNEY Foa nNO-r- Piaintiff Jason Myung Rogers SUPERtOR COURT OF CAl.iFORNIA, CQUNTY OF San FranCl smEET naoaEss: 400 McAilister Steet MAI{.ING ADORESS: c'TY ANa zP com: c,an Francisco, CA 94102 BRnNCHNWE: Ilnlimitari .lircivAirrlinn PLAfNTiFFIPETiTIONER: Jason Myung RDgers DEFENDANTiRESPONDENT: PebpieConnect lnC, d/b/a Intelius CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT cASE NUMees (Check oae): © UNt_IMtTED CASE LlMITED CASE CGC-18-571620 (Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,0W exceeds $25,000) or lm) A CASE MANAGEAAENT CONFERENCE is scheduied as foiiows: Date: June 12, 2019 Tins3: 10:30 Dept.: 610 Div.. , Address of court (if drNerent from the address above): =] Notice of intent to Appear by TeHephone, by (name): Room: 610 iNSTRUCTIONS: A11 appiicabie boues must be checked, and the speci5ed information must be provided. 1. Party or panUes (answer one): a. This statement is submitted by party (name): Plaintdf Jason Myung Rogers b. This statement is submitted ]ointiy by parties (names): 2. Compiaint and cross-cornpiaint (to be answered tty plaintiffs and cnoss-complainants only) a. The compiaint was fikad on (date): January 3, 2019 b. [__1 The arooss-campiaint, if any, was fited on (date): 3. Seroice (to be answened by pfaintfffs and cmss-cnmptainants ortty) a. Ait parties named in the comptaint and cross-compiaint have been sarved, have appeared, or have been dismissed. b. © The foiiowing parties named in the compiaint or cross-wmpiaint (1) Q have not been served (specify names and exp/ain why not): PeopleConnect ina. d/b/al Inteiius (2) © have been sen+ed but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (sFecify names): (3) E] have had a defauil entered against them (specify names): c. L] The foilowing additionai parkies may be added (speclfy names, nature of fnvotven7ent in case, and date by whlCh they may be served): 4. Description of case a. Type of case in ©comp{aint r-7 cxoss-compiaint (Descrlbe, including causes of action): Defarrtation, EIED, General negligence, B&P 17200/17500 viofations. fntemet backgraund Checic corporation falsely accused PtWntiff of having invotvement in numerous fed. crim. cases and published info to 3tti partiea v.n. I ot b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CASE RAANAGEMENT STATEMENT ~'•'°~' a ~ A~ Gamcd Ot C81~wrN8 niks 3.740-3.730 0M.11001ay. JUIp 1. 20111 wwwoowts.ae.pov Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 48 of 52 CM-110 _ PLAINTIFF/PETiTIONER: Jasan Myung Ragers CASE NUMBER DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: PeopteConneCt Inc. dlbia intelius CGC-18-571620 4. b. Provide a brief statement of the case, induding any damages. (tf personat inJury damages are sought, specify the iryury and damages c/aimed, inctuding medicat expenses to date (indicate soun;e and amount), esfimated future medfca/ expenses, tost eamings to date, and estimated futum tost eamings. lf equitable nefief is soughG describe the nature of the relief.) 5tatement of Damages will be served. Plainfiff Is requesting emotionai distress damages, medicai damages, and loss of incx}me damages. Plaintiff is aiso requesting punitive damages. See above for brief description of case. j_] (If more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.) S. Jury or nonjury triai The party or parties request Q a jury trial = a nonjury trial. (tf more than one party, provide the name of each party re4'uesft a ju►y Mat): 6. Trial date a. The trial has been set for (date): b, No triai date has been set. This case will be ready for triai within 12 months of the date of the filing of the complaint (if not, exptain): Plaintiff has had probtems serving Defendant because PeopteConnect Inc, is a corp, name in many states. c. Dates on which parties or attomeys wili not be available for trial (spacify dates and exptain neasons for unavaitabitity): 7. Estimated length of trial The paRy or parGes estimate that the trial will take (check one): a. © days (specify number): 3-5 days. b. [_1 hours (short causes) (spectiy): 8. Trial napnssentation (to be answe>eed foreach party) The party or parties will be represented at fial by the attomey or party listed in the caption = by the following: a. Attomey: b. Frm: c. Addn3ss: d. Telephone number. f. Fax number: e. E-mail address: g. Party represented: = Additional representation is descxibed in Attachment 8. 9. Prefenence (Q This case is entitied to preference (specity code section): 10. Alt+~ernative dispute resoiution (ADR) a. ADR information package. Piease note that different ADR pnxesses are availabie in different courts and communities; read the ADR information package provided by the court under rule 3.221 for information about the processes available through the court and community programs in this case. (1) For parties represented by rxounsei: Counse! has 0 has not provided the ADR information package klnti8ed in rule 3.221 to the client and reviewed ADR options with the ciient. (2) For self-represented parties: Party = has 0 has not reviewed the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221. b. Referrai t:o judicial arbitration or civii action mediation C~f available). (1) This matter is subject to mandatory judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procxuture section 1141.11 or to civii adion mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775.3 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit. (2) [] Piaintiff eieds to refer tfiis cas® to judicial arbitration and agrees to timit recovery to the amount specfied in Code of Civii Procedure secdon 1141.11. (3) This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 3.811 of the Califomia Rules of Courtor from civil actron mediation under Code of Civil Procedure secfion 1775 et seq. (specify exemption): cWtt°tR"°.My". 201'] CA$E MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Pa0'2ofe Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 49 of 52 CM-110 PLAINTIFFIPETITIC3NER: Jason Myung Rogers ICAsE """`s£R: ~EFENDANTIRESPONDENT: PeopleConnect Inc. dib/a intelius CGC-18•571620 10. a. Indicate the ADR proaess or processes that the party or parGes are willing to partiapate in, have agreed to participate in, or have akeady particoated in (check aft that appty and prov'u!e ttre specffied information): The party or parties oompleting If the party or parties completing ttris form in the case have agnaed to this form ana wtiting to participate in or have already completed an ADR process or processes, partictpate in the folbwing ADR indicate the stabus of the pmcesses,(attach a copy ol the partfes' ADR processes (check afl that appfy): .sttpulatlon): Q Mediation session not yet scheduled [=] Q Mediation session scheduled for (date): (1) Mediation Q Agreed to comptete mediation by (date): Q Mediation compteted on (date): Q Settlement conference not yet scheduled (2) Settlement 123 Q Settiement conference scheduled for (date): conference Q Agread to compiete settlement conference by (date): Q Settiement aonference compieted on (date): (~] Neutrat evaluatian not yet sct►eduled © 0 Neutral evaivation scheduled for (date): (3) Neutral evaluation Q Agreed to complete neutrai evaluation by (date): Q Neutral evaluation cempbted on (date): M Judiciai arbittation not yet scheduled (4) Nonbinding jtttlicial © Q Judicial arbitration scfieduled for (date): arbitration Q Agreed to compiete judiciai arbitratton by (date): Q Judicial arbitration oompleted on (date): [~ Private arbitration not yet scheduled (5) Binding pfirate Q Q Private arbitraGon scheduled for (date): arbitration Agreed to cxrmplete private arbitration by (riafe): Q Private arbitration compieted on (date): M3 ADR session not yet scheduled Q Q ADR session sc~eduled for (date): (6) Oti~er (spectfy): Q Agreed to commplete ADR session by (date): [~ ADR completed on (date): C "'' 14IRv "'' O '`1'20111 CASE MANAGEAAENT STATEMENT ~a3ds Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 50 of 52 cmdl PI.AiNTiFF/PET1TlQNEF2: Jason Myung Rogers CASE NtMABER: , DFr:ENWwTIREsPONDEaT: FeopleConnect Inc. d/bla intelius CGC-15-571620 11.insurance a. [Q insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement (name): b. Reservation of rights: M Yes [Q No c. [Q Coverage issues wiN significantly affect resoiution of this case (ezptain): 12. ,turisdiction indicate any matters that may efFect the courCs jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the status. Q Bankruptcy Q Other (specify): Status: 13. RelaUed cases, consofidation, and coordination a. There are companion, undertying, or reiated cases. (1) Name of case: (2) tVame of court: (3) Case number: (4) Status: Q Additionai cases are described in Attachment 13a. b. O A motion to = consolidate .Q wordinate , will be fiied by (name party): 14. 8ifur+cation Q The party or parties intend to fiie a motion for an order bifurcating, severing, or coordinating the foitowing issues or causes of adion ftvecily movTng party, type of motion, arrd rsasons): 15. Other rnotionm Q The party or parties expect to fiie the foitowing motions before triai (specffy movrng party, type of motron, and issues): 16. Discovery a. [Q The party or paKm have compteted ali discovery. b. Q The foifowing discovery wiii be completed by the date specified (descrfbe a!t arstidpated dlscovery): PartV oewjwm 20 c, [Q The fiailowing discovery issues, including issues regarding the discovery of eiectronicaliy stored information, ar+e anticipated (specify): CW10is°" J"ly' 201j CASE MANAGEMENT 8TATEMENT °ip"4015 Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 51 of 52 CM-11a PtAWTtFF/PETITK}NER: Jason Myung Rogers CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANTIRESPONDEiVT: PeopkiCo~ ~ in0. d/bla (ntellus CGC-18-571620 17. Econotnic litigaticn a. This is a iimited civil case (i.e., tne amount demanded is $25,000 or iess) and the economic iitigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedurre setxions 90-98 will appiy to this case. b. [7 This is a timited dvil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic iitigation procedures or for additional discovery will be filed ('rt checked. exptain specifraatfy why ecauromic tifigabavr procedures relating to discovery or Mai shou/d not appty to fhis case): 18, t}ther tssues Q The party or parties request that the foibwing additionai rrratterrs be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify): Piaintitf may have served wrong registered agent because he served the Registered Agent for PeopleConnect inc. as identified by the Califomia Secretary of State. However Mr. Steven Cooper said he was not the pnoper n3gistered agent. Piaintiff is now serving PeopieConnect lnc.'s reg, ag. ID'd by Wash. Sec. of St. website. 19. Meet andi confer a. = The party or parties have met and confemad with aii parties on ail subjects required by rule 3.724 of the Caliiwnia Rula of Court (tf not explain): b. After meegng and conferring as required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agn3e on the foilowtng (spedfY): 20. Total number of pages attached (tf any): I am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and altemative dispute resoluaon. as wen as ather issues raised by this statement, and wiii possess the authority to enter into stipuiations on these issues at the dme of the case management amference, including the written authority of the party where required. Date: May 14, 2019 Ronaid M.. Toran (TYPE OR PRINT NAhfE) YYPE OR PRINT NAME) .~-----~ (s RE Qi P OR ATTORNEY) ~ (SiCiNATURE OF PARTV OR ATTORNEY) (~ Additional signatures are attached. 1C6A'10(R'v•J*'•201j CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT P.paore Case 3:19-cv-03416 Document 1-2 Filed 06/14/19 Page 52 of 52 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >s & p ,w PROOF OF SERVICE I, Luana Washington, declare as follows: I am employed in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is MAN ATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90064-1614. On June 14, 2019,1 served the within: San Francisco, CA 94121 Phone: 415-919-9033 Fax: 415-752-0966 Email: rontoran @ gmail.com [X| (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) By placing such document(s) in a sealed envelope, for collection and overnight mailing at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Los Angeles, California following ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar with the practice at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP for collection and processing of overnight service mailing, said practice being that in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the overnight messenger service, GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT, for delivery as addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 14, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: Ronald M. Toran 264 20th Avenue Attorney for Plaintiff, JASON MYUNG ROGERS 323867036,1 PROOF OF SERVICE
