ORIGINAL 20 a 2 25 n Behzad Nahai, Esq., State Bar No. 112759 S$ q Edward 1. Wei, Esq., State Bar No. 252333, ft NAHAI LAW GROUP A Professional Corporation 10850 Wilshire Bivd, Suite 1100 ‘Los Angcles, California 90024 A Tefephone: (310) 470-2000 st NGL Facsimile: (510) 470-2003 10 Attomeys for Plaintiff oct 1970 fost ILLUSIONIST DISTRIBUTION, LLC won ey. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ~CENTRAL DISTRICT ILLUSIONIST DISTRIBUTION, LLC, caseno. BC44T718 Delaware limited liability company, qualified 10 do business in California, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR Plaintiff, (2) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; @) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR v COMPETITION; @) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS SONY PICTURES CLASSICS, INC., a PRACTICES; AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (}) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; (2) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION; (0) CALIFORNIA UNPAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (4) DECLARATORY RELIEF : brinaden Reseed California corporation; PATHE PICTURES, a ) (4) DECLARATORY RELIEF business of unknown form; and DOES 1-25, Defendants (Demand for Jury Trial] TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: eene Plaintiff Illusionist Distribution, LLC (“Plaintiff”), hereby alleges as follows: Eg 3 g 3 NATURE OF THE ACTION Be! § 3 1. Plaintiff lusionist Distribution, LLC brings this action for damages, inj S38 relief and declaratory relief pursuant to Plaintiff's claims of trademark infringement, unfair @ | © FE 3 B2 Po 2 2 ‘competition, and unfair business practices against defendants Sony Pictures Classics, Inc. and Pathe Pictures (collectively referred to as “Defendants") who have inftinged PlaintifPs exclusive_ rights in the well-known, Academy Award nominated motion picture “The Ilusionist.” THE PARTIES 2. lusionist Distribution, LLC is, and was for all times relevant hereto, a limited liability company, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware with, for all times relevant hereto, a principal place of business located in the County of Los Angeles, California, 3, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Sony Pictures Classics, Tne. is, and was for all times relevant hereto, « limited liability company, organized and existing ‘under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware with, forall times relevant hereto, a ‘principal place of business located in the County of Los Angeles, California, 4, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges Pathe Pictures is and was for all times relevant hereto, an alien corporation organized and caisting under and by virtue of the Jaws of Franee, with its principal place of business located in Paris, France, and doing ‘business within Los Angeles County, California, He ‘The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associates, partners, | officers, principals, shareholders or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who, therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names, Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities ‘when ascertained, PlaintifFis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that such fictitiously named DOE Defendants are in some manner responsible for each and every uct, comission or obligation hereinafter set forth, and proximately caused the damages claimed herein [by reason of which said fictitiously named Defendants are iable to Plaintiff for the relief prayed forherein, 6. Plaintiff's informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times berein mentioned, each defendant, including DOE defendants, was the agent, servant, employee and/or VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: @) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMFETITION; “@) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (#) DECLARATORY RELIEF 2 Print on Reged PapelB 9 a representative of ench of the other defendants and, that at all times herein mentioned, was acting within the course and scope of and pursuant to said agency, service, emaployment and/or representation. 7. Plaintiffs informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, euch of the defendants, including DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, was the agent, partner, officer, employee, servant, alter-ego and/or co-conspirator of one or more of the other defendants, and at all times mentioned herein, acted within the course and scope of such relationship(s), or otherwise in concert with or at the direction or control or with the ratification of one or more of the other defendants, such that reference to any named defendant shall be deemed to include DOES 1 through 20, inclusive FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTI (Applicable to All Causes of Action) Plaintiff's Academy Award Nominated Motion Picture: “The Musionist” (2006) 8. Ilusionist Distribution, LLC is the owner of the worldwide copyrights and ‘unregistered trademarks to the well-known and highly acclaimed motion picture “The llusionist:” “The Mlustonist” is based on the short story “Eisenheim the IMusionist” (1989) written by Pulitzer prize-winning novelist Steven Millhauser, The motion picture “The | Mlusionist” was written and directed by Neil Burger and starred Ed Norton, Jessica Biel, and Paul Giamatti. 9, Theplot of “The Iustonisi” centers on a stage magician named Biseneirs (played by Bd Norton), who seemingly possesses extraordinary powers, and falls in love with « duchess named Sophie (played by Jessica Biel), In the beginning of the film which is set in ‘Vienna (Austria), Bisenheim and Sophie meet and attempt to elope; however, their ‘plans are foiled and they are separated, After years of traveling during which Eisenheim perfects his craft ‘of performing magic, Eisenbeim retums to Vienna as a master illusionist and learms that Sophie is set to be married against her wishes to the wicked Crown Prince. Bisenheim and Sophie VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; 2) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETTSION; “R)CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND () DECLARATORY RELIEF 3 Prine on Rey Papea n B rekindle their romance and Eisenheim uses his superior skills as an illusionist to expose the ‘Crown Prince's villainous nature and escape with Sophie to start a new life. 10. “The Ilusionist” premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and was financed by a substantial marketing and advertising campaign in the United States. “The Hiusionist” was released thereafter in the United States in August 2006 and eventually opened in over 1,400 U.S. theaters, becoming a box office suecess with gross receipts totaling over $87 million dollars worldwide. The cast of Hollywood stars Ed Norton, Jessica Biel, and Paul Giamatti generated substantial publicity in the United States and helped establish “The Illusionist” as a popular and distinct motion picture among the American public. “The Itlusionise” was also praised by critics in various media outlets in television, newspapers, magazines and the internet, and eared an ‘Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography. “The Jlusionist” remains a wel-known and highly identifiable motion picture tothe vast majority of the American public. Itis currently available on home video through prominent consumer outlets such as Netflix, Amazon.com, ‘Target, and Wal-Mart, Defendants? Infringing Picture Also Named “The Illusionist” (2010) 11, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Pathe Pictures Dy and through its American distributor Sony Pictures Classics, Inc. intends to distribute and release in theaters an animated film in November 2010 (hereinafter, the “Inftinging Picture”) witha tite that is identical to Plaintiff's copyrighted work “The llusionist.” The storyline ofthe Infringing Picture also bears a striking similarity to “The Hlusionist." The lnftinging Picture’s plot is set in Europe and revolves around a traveling magician/illusionist who wanders from country to country in search ofa stage to perform his magic. Like Bisenheim in the “The | Mtusionist” the infringing Picture's protagonist soon meets a young git! who touches him emotionally and changes his perspective of life. Plaintiffs informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants intend to focus their masketing campaign and commercial advertising of the Infringing Picture on the protagonist's development of his magic skills during SS EEE eed VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (t) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; (2) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION; {@) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (6) DECLARATORY RELIEF 4 Printed on Resyeed Papela 2 2 Fa his wanderings and his subsequent discovery of a young lady with whom he develops a close relationship. 12. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the advertising efforts undertaken by defendant Sony Pictures Classics to promote the identical titles and substantial similar plotlines between “The Illusionist” and the Infringing Picture constitute an intentional, caleulated, and deceptive attempt by Defendants to confuse, mislead and deceive the public into believing that the Infringing Pictur is related to and/or afGiiated with “The tusionist” when in fact no such connection exists, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants” distribution and release of the Infringing Picture would likely cause substantial confusion or mistake and mislead a substantial number of consumers as to whether the Inftinging Picture is affiliated, associated, or connected with the identically titled “The Illusionist.” 13, Onorabout September 24, 2010, Plaintif, by letter, advised Defendants of Plaintiff's ownership of the trademark rights to “The Illusionist” and demanded that Defendants cease and desist immediately from further promoting the Infringing Picture under the title of ““The Illusionist” and confirm that Defendants would not release the Infringing Picture in the United States with the same title as “The [lusionist.” Defendants have failed and refused to comply with PlaintifPs demands. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ‘TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (Against All Defendants and DOES 1-25) 14. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraph numbers 1 through 13 above, as if set forth in full herein. 15, “The Illusionist” has acquired a secondary and distinctive meaning among the public, which has come to identify: this title with that certain Academy Award nominated motion picture entitled “The IIusionist” released in 2006 starting Ed Norton, Jessica Biel, and Paul Giamatti as a result of extensive advertising, media exposure, critical acclaim, sales, rentals, and ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; (2) CALIFORNIA UNEAIK COMPETITION; ‘D) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (4) DECLARATORY RELIEF $ Printed on Rey Papal2 n a Bos magege public recognition through film, television, the intemet, and articles in magazines and newspapers. 16. Plaintiffs informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, intend to and will, without permission, authority or license from Plaintiff, or its licensees, promote, market, distribute and release the Infringing Picture in the United States in or| about November 2010 under the name or title of “The Illusionist.” 17, Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, including, without limitation, Defendants’ intent to release the Inffinging Picture with a title identical to “The Illusionist” and a substantially similar plotline is likely to mislead, deceive and/or confuse the purchasing public ‘and trade upon the well-known reputation of “The Illusionist.” This conduct by Defendants would constitute acts of false designation of origin, false designation of affiliation, and false or misleading representation of fact all in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(@). 18. Plaintiffhas demanded that Defendants cease and desist from distributing and releasing the Infringing Picture with a tile identical to the “The [usionist” so that the publie is not confused, mistaken or deceived into believing the Infringing Picture is affliated, connected or associated with “The Musionist”, but Defendants have refused. As such, Defendants’ avowed intent to commit trademark infringement is willful, intentional and wanton. 19. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer ireparabie harm and damage as a result of Defendants" infringement. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants any and all gains, direct and indirect, profits and advantages obteined by Defendants as a result of Defendants’ violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1125 according to proof. 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that unless enjoined by the Court, the confusion and deception alleged above and the likelihood thereof will cause iaveparable harm and damage to Plaintiff, Accordingly, Plaintiff's entitled to and requests an injunction pursuant to 15 U.S.C, § 1116 fo enjoin and restrain Defendants and their respective officers, agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in any acts in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(@). ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; (2) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION: ‘@) CALIFORNIA UNPAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND ( DECLARATORY RELIEF 6 ‘rie on Recycled Pe19 Ree BRE RY 21, Byreason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has ineurred and will continue to incur attomeys’ fees and other costs in connection with the prosocution of its claims herein, which attorneys’ fees and costs Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1VMa). ‘SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION (Against All Defendants and DOES 1-25) 22, Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraph numbers | through 21 above, as if set forth in full herein, 23, “The illusionist” has acquired a secondary and distinctive meaning among the public, which has come to identify the title with that certain Academy Award nomwinated motion picture released in 2006 starring Ed Norton, Jessica Biel, and Paul Giamatti, as a result of extensive advertising, media exposure, critical acclaim, sales, rentals, and public recognition through various media including film, television, the internet, and articles in magazines and newspapers. 24, Plaimiffis informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, intend to and will, without permission, authority or license from Plaintiff, or its licensees, promote, market, and release the Infringing Picture in the United States in or about November 2010 under the ttle of “The Illusionist.” 25, Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, including without limitation, Defendants’ intent to release a motion picture with a title identical to “The LUusionisé” and a strikingly similar plotline to “The Iiusionist” is likely to deceive and/or confuse the purchasing public and trade upon the well-known and critically acclaimed reputation of “The Illusionist". These business practices by Defendants would constitute acts of false designation of origin, false designation of affiliation, and false or misleading representation of fact all in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). id i VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; (2) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION; “2) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (4) DECLARATORY RELIEF 7 Pines on Resycet apa}practices and present a threat to the consuming public because the public is likely to be misled and deceived as to the Infringing Picture’s non-existent affiliation, association or relation with “The Hlusionisi.” 32, Plaintiff's informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that unless enjoined by the Court, the confusion and deception alleged above and the likelihood thereof will cause jrreparable harm and damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at Law in that Plaintiff will have extreme difficulty ascertaining the amount of damages caused by Defendants? intentional and willful infringement of Plaintif?’s trademark tights to “The Illusionist” through Defendants? distribution and release of the Infringing Picture under the same motion picture ttle of “The lllusionist.” Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to and requests an injunction to enjoin and restrain Defendants and their respective officers, agents, employees and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in the acts alleged above. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACT DECLARATORY RELIEF (Against All Defendants and DOES 1-25) 33. Plaintif bereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraph numbers I through 32 above, as if set forth in full herein. 34, An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, in that Plaintiff contends, and Defendants deny, that “The Musionist” has acquired a secondary and distinctive meaning among the public so that Defendants’ distribution and release’ of the Inftinging Picture in the United States under the same title of “The Illusionist” would infeinge Plaintiff's exclusive trademark rights to “The Illusionist”. 35, Despite being advised by Plaintiff that Plaintiff owns the trademark rights to “The| Iitusionist,” Defendants have stated that they will distribute and release the Infringing Picture -with a motion picture title identical to “The Mlusionist” in the United States in or about November 2010. ! po VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) TRADEMARK INERINGEMENT; (2) CALIFORN(A UNFAIR COMPETITION; {G}CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (0 DECLARATORY RELIEF 9 Printed on Resyeed Papel25 a ee 26. Plaintiff has demanded that Defendants cease and desist from releasing the 1g Picture with a title identical to the “The Illusionist”, but Defendants have refused. As such, Defendants’ respective acts of unfair competition are willful, intentional and wanton, 27. — Plaintiffhas no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm and damage as a result of Defendants” unfair competition. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover any and all gains, divest and indirect, profits and advantages obtained by Defendants as a result of Defendants’ violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125 according to proof, 28, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and based thercon alleges that unless enjoined ‘by the Coutt, the confusion and deception alleged above and the likelihood thereof will cause ineparable harm and damage to Plaintiff, Waintiff has no adequate remedy at law in that Plaintiff will bave extreme difficulty ascertaining the amount of damages caused by Defendants? intentional and willfil infringement of Plaintiff's trademark rights to “The Illusionist” through Defendants’ distribution and relesse of the Infringing Picture under the same motion picture ttle of“The Illusionist.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs entitled to and requests an injunction pursuant to 15US.C. § 1116 to enjoin and restrain Defendants and their respective officers, agents, ‘employees and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in any acts in violation of 15 USC. § 1125). ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Against All Defendants and DOES 1-25) 29, Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraph mumbers 1 through 28 above, as if set forth in full herein, 30. Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as alleged above and otherwise, constitutes unfair competition and deceptive practices under California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seg. and 17500, et seg. 31. Specifically, Defendants" avowed intent to commit trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) would constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business Ree VERIFtED COMPLAINT FOR () TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (2) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION: "O) CALIFORNUA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND (4) DECLARATORY RELIEF 8 ser alte36. ‘A judicial determination of the rights and duties of the parties, and a judicial declaration, is necessary and appropriate at this time under all the circumstances alleged herein, so that the parties may know their rights and obligations with respect to the controversy alleged herein. 37, Plaintiff therefore seeks a judicial declaration that (1) “The Illusionist” has acquired a secondary and distinctive meaning among the American public so that Defendants’ distribution and release of the Infringing Picture in the United States under the same title of “The) Ilusionist” would infringe Plaintiff's exclusive trademark rights to “The Itusionist” and (2) Defendants are thereby enjoined from displaying, distributing, and/or releasing the Infringing. Picture under the title of “The Illusionist” in thé United States without the license, permission, and/or authority of the Plaintiff as the exclusive owner of the registered copyrights and ‘unregistered trademarks to “The Hlusionist.” PRAYER FOR RELIEF ‘Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants Sony Pictures Classics, Inc., Pathe Pictures and DOES 1-10, and each of them, as follows: Asto the First Cause of Action for F ent: 1. Foran order requiring Defendants to show cause, if any they have, why they should not be enjoined as set forth below, during the pendency of this action; 2, Fora temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against Defendants’ distribution and release of the Infringing Picture in the United States under the title of “The Illusionist”; 3, For disgorgement of all profits of Defendants plus compensatory damages for all losses of Pleintif arising from Defendants’ trademark infringement, the exact sum determined according to proof, ‘Asto the Second Cause of Action for California Unfnit Competition: 4, Foran order requiring Defendants to show cause, if any they have, why they should not be enjoined as set forth below, during the pendency of this action; (EE ARR aR nana eee ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; Q) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION; (3) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (4) DECLARATORY RELIEF 0 Pinta on Resylad Pap5, ot atemporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against Defendants’ disuibution and release ofthe Infinging Picture inthe United States under the ttle of “The Ilusionist; 6. Fordisgorgement of all profits of Defendants plus compensatory damages forall tosses of Plaintiff arising from Defendants’ trademark infingement, the exact sum determined according to proof; As to the Thind Cause of Action for California Unfair Business Practices: 7. Foran order requiring Defendants to show cause, if any they have, why they should not be enjoined as set forth below, during the pendency of this action; 8, Fora temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injuoction against Defendants’ distribution and release of the Infringing Pioture i the United States under the title of “The llusionist”; 9. For disgorgement of all profits of Defendants plus compensatory damages for all losses of Plaintiff arising from Defendants" trademark infringement, the exact sum to be proven at the time of trial; 10. For treble damages pursuant to Cal. Bus, & Prof. seetion 17082, the exact sum determined according to proof, | As to the Fourth sc of Action for Declaratory Relief: 1, Foran order and decree and a judicial declaration that a. The motion picture “The Illusionist" has acquired a secondary and distinctive meaning among the American public; and >. Defendants’ distribution and release of the Infringing Picture in the United States under the title of “The Illusionist” would infringe Plaintiff's exclusive trademark rights to “The Ilusionist.” all ti 12. For an award of reasonable attorneys” fees and costs as permitted by law; and 13. For such further and other relief as may be deemed proper by this Court. [REE EEE eee ED COMPLAINT FOR (I) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; @) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITIONS “Q) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (4) DECLARATORY RELIEF u Pind on Reged PapeDated: October 18, 2010 NAHAI LAW GROUP, ‘A Professional Corporation « By, a Behzad Natiai Edward L. Wei ‘Attomeys for Plaintif? ILLUSIONIST DISTRIBUTION, LLC DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Illusionist Distribution, LLC hereby demands a trial by jury of any issue triable by right of jury. Dated: October 18,2010 ‘NAHAI LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation. . \e, by i Beliad Nahai Edward L. Wei Attorneys for Plaintiff ILLUSIONIST DISTRIBUTION, LLC VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (}) TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT; (2) CALIFORNIA UNTAIK COMPETITION: “B) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; AND (#) DECLARATORY RELIEF 2 Printed on Reytet Pape2 2 “ 1s ‘6 ” % n a [CATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1 have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know its contents, 1am an Officer of Blusionist Distribution, LLC, the plaintiff in the abové-entitled action, and Tam authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. ram informed and belive, and based thereon allege that thesmattrs ted in th Verified Complaint are true and correct. Executed on October 18, 2010, at Los Angeles, California. | declare under penalty of perjury wnder the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ‘Dennis Brown LS eS SSS el “YRIFTED COMPLAINT FOR (1) TRADEMARK. [ORANGEMEN (2) CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETI ‘BiBatirowen eam sues PRACTCRS AND (DECLARATORY RELIEF E ited on Remy Papee sumfons Oa (CITACION JUDICIAL) 0 EN OS arm NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: {AVISO AL DEMANDADO): SONY PICTURES CLASSICS, INC., @ California 7 i corporation; PATHE PICTURES, a business of unknown SbPER form; and DOBS 1-25 AITO Ne AS PRA OCT 192010 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: sr Une (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): TLLUSIONIST DISTRIBUTION, LLC, & Delaware limiced Decuty liability company, qualified to do business in california EGRET Yorn we Ts cay a or a RET a id nin Ree ein HO ve 90 CALENDAR DAYS afar summons and lage papers ae served on yout fle @waten responce a hs court and have 2 caPy oc aero! shore cal wil rot rect ou. Your witen rponse mvt bein rope legal on f you want he cout to hear You served 9 ea obo oun use for you oponeo. You can tn wea cout fam and mor ormoton athe Gail Cov aS Se (on roca orn ear eg eter vent yer fhe oo ag usr fom. If you dona fe your esponsy on tn, yo may lone the case ‘and your wage, mney, ara oper thay be taken wb hor warning or the curt mea Oe na gal ersreent, You may wantto eal an atorny ght away. you donot kaw an atemey, you may want ea an aorey Ce oe coor sfna an otomey, You mey be etgie fr fae ogal Senden tom a nonprft legal sevens progam. You con loco (ee cape at be Catton Lega Sovtces Wed sit (yr Jannelpealfomie or), te Caiferia Cours Onin Serolp Contr (Gru courte ca ey contig yal core ce resin wT, Te cag 3 SU ‘ated fees and ee ever raf valor sara of $10.000 oor na ev cose, The cours Ban rust be pal before the cout wil arwas Wo cee {A501 te han emer. Tale ew onto de 20 cee, a corte puede decir en su canta sn escuchar su versa. Loa a informacion @ Santi 21 A OE CALENDARIO después da quel erequen esta ckactny pales lgeles para prosontar uno espuestsperesenio en ese eran oii se anogce una cope oldamandon. Una cara o una famed eerie no fo peegen, Surespuese por asco fee ave estar Soe pact a gracing doses que procasen sy caso on fo corte. Es posible que aye un formula ove used pueda UE pare u e=pUesta, Bre Far ocos fommsaros da cone y mas ifermacion enol Cant de Ayusa de ls Cotas do Caidora (www sucxre.cago) 710 pancreas loc do condato oon fa cota que ueds mas crea. Siro puede Pag la cuca de present, pe ! soothe dea covt ae tn lomulare de exencon de Pago Ge eucts. So proceta su espueste a empe. puede porder wt caa0 por incamgiimen lo cote fe [ied quar su cual, nero y bones zi as adverts. tt eictos gas bs rocorernfble que lama a un abogaco Inmediatamante. Sino canoes 9 un abogade, puede Lames @unsariio de eet gre recuse puede payor un soogado, ee posble que cumela con oa egulios para oblener seria egales ‘deen [Bebra to senate oie sn foe oo. Func ancora eae gobo fas ce on an koa da Clos oa Se Fr lowteipealtoma ar 29 of Cntr de Ayuda de las Corot | ny sucorte ca.go\) © ponlendase en contacto gon 0 cove oo! tar obcgndon neti, AVISO” Por oy, Ja cote fee derechos ecama es cunts ys cosios erantos por pone” un gravomon sobre ca oat jp $10 000 6 mes a valor recbia medians wt acuerdo oun concaalan de arbiraje on un caao ce derecho cv Tine cue al grovarmon del corte artes de que la cote punda desachare) C950. roam. ard address of te coun is: (Elnombre y direccion de ia corte os): [siren Los Angeles Superior Court 221 Worth Hill street BlA4 THe 171 North Will Street Los Angeles, California 90022 ‘The name address, and telephone numbar of plaintiffs atlorney, or plant without an attomey Is: {Elnombro, la cireccion'y af numero do ftéfono del sbogado del demendente, o del Yemandente que noi Behzad' Nahai, Esq., SBN 112759 (310) 470-7060 NBHAT LAW GROUP 10850 Wilshire Bivd., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, a fornia 90024 DATE: (For proor oMtehres of Tis summons, re {Pore pruobe de eniiege do esta citaitinA * womice CP 416.60 (minor) {5 cee 416 20 (exfunct commosatn) OCP 416.70 (conservateo) cer sre40 (a ‘ar pattnership) [—] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) omer spect: 4. [57] by personal ceiver on (date: sages eG Cauca eaten ‘SUMMONS ata cnn Bo. share fociCASES OF INTEREST FOR OCTOBER 18-22, 2010 MONDAY 8:30 a.m. VAN NUYS - A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Christian Marcus Verdin, who is accused of attacking a woman who scrambled down a cliff in Point Dume State Park in Malibu to get away from him. Dept. N, Van Nuys Courthouse, 14400 Erwin Street Mall. Contact: (818) 374-2691. TUESDAY 8:30 a.m, VAN NUYS - A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Melvin Shane Sparks, a judge on MTV's “America's Best Dance Crew." He is charged with ‘sex-related counts involving an underage girl in the mid-1990s. Dept. 122, Van Nuys Courthouse, 14400 Erwin Street Mall. Contact: (818) 374-2731. 8:30 a.m. LOS ANGELES - A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Damon Thompson, a UCLA student charged with slashing a female classmate's throat. Dept. C, Airport Branch Courthouse, 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd, Contact: (310) 727-6111. 1:30 p.m. CIVIC CENTER - A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Aretha Wilson, Who is accused of attacking actor Leonardo DiCaprio with a glass in June 2005 during a party in Hollywood Hills. Dept. 122, Criminal Courts Building, 210 W. Temple St. Contact: (213) 974-5759. WEDNESDAY 8:30 a.m. VAN NUYS - A restitution hearing is scheduled for Brian Alan Anderson and William Coppock, who pleaded no contest to charges stemming from the November 2007 Corral Canyon Fire that destroyed 53 homes and injured six firefighters. A pretrial hearing is set for co-defendants Eric Matthew Ullman and Dean Allen Lavorante. Dept. V, Van Nuys Courthouse, 14400 Erwin Street Mall. Contact: (818) 374-2711. 8:30 a.m. VAN NUYS - A preliminary hearing date is scheduled to be set for Nathan Lee Parada, who is accused of trying to break into socialite Paris Hilton's home. Dept. 107, Van Nuys Courthouse, 14400 Erwin Street Mall. Contact: (818) 374-2680. 8:30 a.m, CIVIC CENTER - A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Kevin Antario Brown, a doctor accused of sexually assaulting 11 female patients and an undercover officer. He is the son of the premier of Bermuda. Dept. 107, Criminal Courts Building, 210 W. Temple St. Contact: (213) 974-5731THURSDAY 8:30 a.m. CIVIC CENTER - Arraignment is scheduled for former Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo, former Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia, Mayor Oscar Hernandez, City Council members Teresa Jacobo and George Mirabal and former council members Luis Artiga, George Cole and Victor Bello. They are charged with misappropriation of public funds. Rizzo also is charged with conflict of interest and falsification of public records by an official custodian. Dept. 30, Criminal Courts Building, 210 W. Temple St. Contact: (213) 974-6011. 8:30 a.m. CIVIC CENTER - A bail review and pretrial hearing are scheduled for Alex Da Silva, a salsa dance instructor who worked as a choreographer on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance. He is accused of sexually assaulting four women he met through his dance instruction classes. Dept. 109, Criminal Courts Building, 210 W. Temple St. Contact: (213) 974-5721. 8:30 a.m. LONG BEACH - Trial is scheduled - but is expected to be postponed - - for Claude Edward Foulk, the former executive director of Napa State Hospital. He is charged with molesting his adopted foster son for more than a decade. Dept. D, Long Beach Courthouse, 415 W. Ocean Blvd. Contact: (562) 491-6131. FRIDAY 8:30 a.m, BEVERLY HILLS - Actress Lindsay Lohan is due in court for a hearing involving a pair of DUI cases. The judge revoked her probation and ordered her to serve 30 days in county jail after she confirmed in a Twitter posting that she had failed a court-ordered drug test. Dept. 1, Beverly Hills Courthouse, 9355 Burton Way. Contact: (310) 288-1202. 8:30 a.m. CIVIC CENTER - A preliminary hearing date is scheduled to be set for Kiana Barker, who is charged with murder, assault, child abuse and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime in the death of her 2 1/2-year-old foster daughter in South Los Angeles. Barker's boyfriend, James Dewitt Julian, is charged with being an accessory after the fact and dissuading a witness. Dept. 33, Criminal Courts Building, 210 W. Temple St. Contact: (213) 974-9680. 8:30 am. LOS ANGELES - A progress report hearing is scheduled for Steven Richard Burky. He pleaded no contest to charges that he stalked actors Jennifer Gamer and Ben Affleck, but was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity. He was ordered to be sent to a state mental hospital. Dept. D, Airport Branch Courthouse, 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd. Contact: (310) 727-6056. 9 a.m, CIVIC CENTER - A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Eulalio “Lalo” Martinez, a reputed gang member accused of ordering a “hit" on a Rosemead man in 1998. Jurors deadlocked in his first trial. Dept. 106, Criminal Courts Building, 210 W. Temple St. Contact: (213) 974-5781.