1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

~ g&; ..-~ -.;,

Mary-Christine Sungaila (#156795) mcsungaIla(a),swlaw.com Deborah S.lV1allgrave (#198603) dmallgraveesswlaw.com Matthew E.13ennett (#268373) mbennettrdlswlaw.coin 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689 Telephone: 714-427-7000 Facsimile: 714-427-7799 Allison M. Lefrak (pro hac vice pending) ale frak(a),humanrigfitsusa. org World Organization for Human Rights USA 2029 P Street, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-296-5702 Facsimile: 202-296-5704 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY N. CHAI

cs

-.
,

n
---,
,- .'

n
r-

T'

.. :.' ., v~
'

.,~.
.. -'

;Do

c::
GJ
,,)

SNELL &----wrLMER L.L.P.

>
,-

:.2::
r-

~IJ
_".\>o

"
,-

..
:.,

-r; ('"1

---~ ._:;.
__

,

~-T1 "-::J

\

,- r-

>

:) x

N

r <J1

\

-i

12 13 14

S ~
~

Q)

-k$..J

a=ti::;
...j c,

.~!:6 ~~~g u.,;.~O
0-;;::"~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DIfRICff ANTHONY N. CHAI, Plaintiff, vs. NETFIRMS.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-9, inclusive, Defendants.

E~ ii.BN

==

(J)

to

r::

~.gu~ 15 ....lg~~
s3 "'u

· ... " If l""CASENO."

RF1Cj.LIFORNIA

~~

u

069 8a~(tw)t)

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE; 2. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES; and 3. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS DEMAND FOR JURy TRIAL
SUMMARy

This case lies at the intersection

of privacy

guarantees,

freedom

0

expression, international human rights law, and the internet. Anthony N. Chai, a naturalized United States citizen from Thailand, brings this action against Netfirms.com, Inc., a provider of web hosting and domain name search and registration services headquartered in Canada with an office in the
13593883

1

Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

United States.

Mr. Chai posted anonymous comments critical of Thailand lese a forum for users to anonymously post a

majeste laws on www.manusaya.com.l

range of articles and comments about politics in Thailand, which was hosted by defendant Netfirms.com. As the host of Manusaya, Netfirms.com had access to Internet Protocol (IP)2 and email addresses for all of the users who posted: articles ~or .., comments on the website.
..

information

-:-1

Thailand's lese majeste laws, contained in Article 112 of Thailand's Crirritbal Code, provide in pertinent part: "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years." Lese majeste laws are enforced by the National Intelligence Agency, the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, and the

....... • ...-4

S
...J

~

g~
~N

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

..-~ ~..o
.'=-.0

Bureau of High Tech Crimes within the Department of Special Investigations ("DSI"). In December 2003, the Information and Communications Technology

cn~~o 0 (.J.l
u,
~

~o:~~.~~

s::
CI)

dd....J

O-;.:::'¢"

~J::::;
0 ~~

:s

!DU:!: c ~t; o~ u~ au a~

Ministry set up a Cyber Inspector Team to monitor and ban web sites featuring pornography and other content the government determined to be inappropriate, including content subject to lese majeste laws. Lese majeste laws have been enforced with alarming frequency over the past several years. Thai-based media routinely self-censor coverage of the royal family, but the Internet has opened a new forum. Thai authorities have responded by trying to block thousands of websites considered subversive, arguing that protection of the monarchy's reputation is of the utmost importance. Often those charged with lese

so

<~

c;:g

'Oll

1 Manusaya is a Thai word that means "human." The tagline for the site, translated into English, was "For Democracy, For Human Rights, in the Land ofthe Free." A note at the top of the site's home page said (in Thai), "Please note: This website is dedicated to those who fight for full democracy, human rights, in the land of the free. Here, we have no class system, racism, or caste. We are world human beings, world citizens. We are equal. We value equal rights and equal liberty. We oppose all forms of violence and all kinds of terrorism being waged around the world." 2 An IP address is a numerical label assigned to each device (e.g., computer, printer) participating in a computer network. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.
13593883

- 2-

Complaint

~~ -. ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -e dd. shut down. 27. and Technology (lCT) companies in the United States and elsewhere around the world were well aware of the dangers posed to dissidents in many parts of the world and the consequent obligations those dangers put upon web hosting companies to use due diligence when responding to law enforcement requests for private information that could identify critics and human rights defenders. Chai's General Comment No. the right to privacy. "China Frees Net Dissidents."). 4 See.:.") 3 13593883 12 S ~ <I) ~ 8~ . ." CNN. In the recent United Nations Human Rights Committee General Comment No. "Successor to KGB is Spymg Over the Internet." San Jose Mercury News. Amnesty International said in a report released Wednesday. at 11."). Russian advocates of human rights and free speech say the security service has already forced many of the country's 350 Internet service providers to install surveillance equipment.. also at the request of Thai officials.N.' warns one of the banners that angry web designers in Russia have posted on the Internet.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 majeste offenses are denied bail and remain in prison for several months awaiting trial. Human Rights Comm.: u. CCPRIC/GC/34 (July 21. U... Nov. Willy Wo-Lap Lam.com suspended Manusaya's account and the website was. Doc.pdf. in effect.. cu ~~~~ E. ("However." The Guardian. Rights Group Says. 102d Sess. U.regime into fresh disarray. Stuart Millar.2N ~~ <!DU:!: -l t:: 00 ~ ciC o~ "::E <~ o~ ~~ ~8 -3- Complaint . ~.").N.. Netfirms." Associated Press. Feb.." On June 6. at the request of Thai officials. 2003 ("Internet surveillance in VIetnam has led to unwarranted prison sentences for dissidents who used online forums to criticize the communist state and espouse pro-democracy views. 34: Article 19: Freedoms of 0pinion and expression. Communication.g.2011). "Internet providers say no to Blunkett. 22. at least a dozen-odd dissidents who have posted anti-government artic1eson the Web remain incarcerated. throwing David Blunkett's post-September 11 data surveillance ..orgienglish/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.J n. Free-Speech Groups in Russia Decry Action. By June 2005. Netfirms. the Human Rights Committee specifically expressed concern over lese majeste laws as a violation of freedom of expression.. Nov..com. including a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment.' Lese majeste provisions directly contradict fundamental principles of international law.com provided Mr. 34.. "Cyberspace Rights Threatened in Vietnam. October 22. Information. available at http://www2.:::: ..l 0-. 30. 2003. including the right to freedom of expression.. and the right to due process.. 2000 ('''The whole Federal Security Service will be crying tomorrow over your love letters... 2002. Sometime before May 2006. 2005. e. Particularly harsh punishments have been delivered by the court in several instances. ("The internet industry has refused to si~ up to plans to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to the records of British web and email users. ~ 0 Cl) ~ ~~~g c.ohchr.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q) IP address and the two email addresses associated with that IP address.. 2011. a company with its principal place of business in Canada..: ~~~g O.once at the DSI in Thailand and once here in the United States . .. he would become one of the political prisoners whose number grew at an alarming rate as strife between pro.. 5 13593883 -4- Complaint ..Jo---.. without Mr. art. Chai traveled to Thailand approximately three times annually. subpoena.Ju.. 3-4.. On August 8. Plaintiff was informed by "email by a Thai government official that he faces arrest and prosecution for violation of Article 112 0 ~ g~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S ~ ~ . . Treaty Doc. a. ~8 Thailand's Criminal Code ifhe ever returns to his native country of Thailand where many of his family members still reside and where he owns a home.enterprises in Canada... "Thailand Arrests American for Alleged King Insult..C. Chai was detained and interrogated twice by Thai government officials .S. Mr..2N dd.. As a consequence. Prior to this time... 2011.com.. iJ. Chai's knowledge or consent.for allegedly insulting the Thai monarchy in violation of Article 112. Chai lived in constant fear that i he gave the government officials any reason whatsoever to renew their interest in him. provided this information to Thai officials without complying with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).-Thailand. 100-18 (1986).. Netfirms.' On August 25. 2009._~O u: ~ e. Mr.:::: ::>al~~ -.~~ .' Additionally..-~ Q) :s ~u c riC o~ factions in Thailand xo s:= <" o~ c:::. Mar. 7 Todd Pittman and Sinfah Tunsarawuth.. c.. U. or warrant as required by the Treaty with Thailand on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. S. Mr. 2000. Plaintiff received notification by mail thatthere is still an active arrest warrant against him issued by the Thai Criminal Court for "Defamation of the See Treaty with Thailand on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.~ o"~ ..com provided this information to Thai the United States Department of State or officials without first contacting requesting that the officials obtain the proper court order." Associated Press. Netfirms. 27. 6 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (S.com's actions.5) applies to private.and anti-monarchy intensified. and prescribes strict rules for the collection and dissemination of personal information..6 As a direct result of Netfirms..

2.com accountable for its unlawful actions. PARTIES 6. resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendants. including pain and Specifically. § 1391(a). .:~ i:< 0 .C. Plaintiff was and is engaged in the business owning and operating a computer repair and sales store in Long Beach.000. California.. AND VENUE claims under 28 U. exclusive of interests and costs..- ~ t:3~~8 u.com's Constitutional and international conduct violates California state laws.S. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 Q) ~.. § 1331." Defendant Netfirms.2N dd . for 13593883 -5- Complaint . Plaintiff was interrogated twice. The amount in controversy exceeds $75. § 1367.~~ 0. At all 0 times relevant to this complaint. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants in that they are doing business in the State of California and they are committing the acts alleged in this State.00.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 H King and Queen under Article 112 of Lese majeste law. "'8 U.S. Plaintiff AnthonyN. 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S ~ Q) -. This action also arises under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. .C. . This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction).. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law gg. ~ u..C. Supplemental jurisdiction over those claims is appropriate because they arise from the same common nucleus of operative facts from which the federal claim arises.: . once in Thailand and once in the United States. o~ ":::' <" o~ o~ ~ o: ~ .C. Chai is a citizen of the State of California.J <ccU! c::~.. The jurisdiction of this Court therefore also is founded on 28 U. ~-E~g Er!. Plaintiff seeks to hold Netfirms. Plaintiff sues for his injuries...J ~ claims asserted herein pursuant to 28 U. suffering. California called Computer Station. 5.!::.S. 4.. as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within Long Beach...JO:... 3.S.. JURISDICTION 1. as well as law.

state. Upon 'information and belief..: ~~'ag 14 u.com has access to and maintains information about individuals using its electronic services. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "'8 defendant is in some way responsible for the events or ...::::: ~~~g .8 11.. Thailand's lese majeste provisions in the Thai Criminal Code make it a criminal offense punishable by up to fifteen years' imprisonment to 8 U. Because there is an active arrest warrant pending.. Defendant Netfirms. Upon information and belief. Specifically. :s"'<:. and was and is engaged in the marketing of these products. Q) cld -l 0-. each of the defendants was the agent.J u.occurrences referred herein.S.. servant and/or employee of each of the remaining defendants and was acting within the purpose and scope of said agency. available at http://www. 9.... At all times mentioned in this complaint. both customers and those utilizing their customers' online services.="'.com was and is engaged in the business of website hosting and domain name registry. Plaintif will amend his complaint to allege the true names and capacities as and when they have been ascertained. Ontario in Canada.~~ cos '"' ON 13 'If" inclusive. -. DEP'T OF STATE.gov/g/drllrlslhrrptl2010/eap/154403.. Upon information and belief..com conducts business in this judicial district. and therefore sues such DOE defendants by fictitious names.. he cannot safely return to his native country of Thailand. Netfirms.htm. The Kingdom of Thailand (hereinafter "Thailand") maintains lese majeste prohibitions within its Criminal Code. defendant Netfinns.0 ~0 ~ a..: o~ wu ow o~ ~ CZl <". Upon information and belief. ""'. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 10.:. By the nature of its activities. 13593883 -6- Complaint .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ Q) alleged violations of Thailand's lese majeste laws.com is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Markham. 8.. Defendant Netfirms. each such fictitiously named ~ . Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants 1-9 g~ :.. r-!. service and/or employment and with the permission/consent of its co-defendants. i.. . S . THAILAND COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES -2010.. 7..

Col. or threaten certain members of the royal family. at that time summarized the Thai Government's investigation related 13593883 -7- Complaint . Computer Station.... Manusaya was owned and operated by Abdulrosa Basil Jengoh. ~ u: ~·e.com. including Plaintiff. they were s:: <~ "'13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 anonymous. account in June 2005 at the request 0 2005. In a statement published on a Thai Government website on March 17. 12. including the Manusaya website.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 J-4 --4 0'" defame.· the email address that was used to submit the article or comment. 18.g xxxxxx@hotmail.. would send emails to Manusaya to submit articles or comments to be posted on the site.:. belonged to Mr. Defendant shut down Manusaya's officials from Thailand. Manusaya operated on the Internet as a forum where users could post a wide range of articles and comments regarding Thai politics.~~ ::1M 0 13 14 V' '1""'4 xo Cl) dd oJ 0-. Manusaya was hosted by Defendant from March 24. ij. Neither the identity of the author. 17. were permitted to use the store's computers to access the Internet. Station employee. 2006. When articles and comments were posted on Manusaya. Police Colonel Yanaphon Youngyuen' s (hereinafter "Pol.com. a Computer to Plaintiff. The website's users. From approximately 2004 through 2005. 15.. nor the IP address of the computer were publicly visible on Manusaya. Jack Chan. 16. o~ o~ comments for posting on Manusaya. 14..0 en .:. the Director of the Bureau of High Tech Crimes. which belonged to submit ~. 13.EN o~ ~~ c.:: . articles which or and Cl) S ~~ -. insult.I ~ . who maintains no connection to Plaintiff. Department of Special Investigation. and patrons used two email addressesinthefollowingform:xxxxxxxx@yahoo. ~u:o.. the comments that Plaintiff posted on Manusaya focused on his perception of lese majeste laws as being unjust. a Swedish citizen. his employees. 2004 to June 6.2 _j u. and anonymously post articles and comments to the site. Youngyuen"). Generally.gu~ 15 c edt. Patrons of Plaintiffs computer store. Plaintiff.

. . s:: t: ci!:. four web sites were shut down and others agreed to delete offending content. Col. He returned approximately ten minutes later.~O ~... 2006.2N . 22.0 ~ oo~:. In May 2006.. Youngyuen stated further in this statement that as a result 0 g:i) ." 19.: ~.. 2004 and received cooperation from all the Thai internet service providers and webmasters in Thailand to blocksuch sites deemed lese majeste to their subscribers. to Manusaya. Immigration Plaintiff was initially airport..s: Q) S -. 13593883 -8- Complaint . and Plaintif was permitted to proceed into the country. He identified Netfirms.. investigators At some point between initiating cooperation with the Thai in May 9.. that Defendant Netfrrms. He described Manusaya as a website "whose aim was to defame and insult the monarchy .com for our expanded investigation.. e~ -e- Manusaya. Plaintiff traveled to Thailand.. Ministry of Information Investigations... we S58 December 1. Pol. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the investigations... The detained at the Thailand Desk at the Bangkok immigration officer stepped away from the desk and went to a nearby office to make a telephone call.manusaya.= . resist Pol.!o 0.JUoi.." 20.~:ri tIJ 0 (). Col. 2009. 2005.. Defendant also provided Thai officials with Plaintiff s IP address and the two associated email addresses. by letter to counsel for Plaintiff on 0-... and Communication worked Technology. Youngyuen stated further in the announcement. as a result of which Defendant Netfinns..com decided to suspend Manusaya's account on June 6. the three major such news governmental agencies.com received a complaint regarding Manusaya from the Thai officials." 21. and Department of Special have together since March 27.gU~ :s o ~ <~ ow 0. namely the National Intelligence Agency. Defendant confirmed in writing. May 2006 Arrest and Interrogation 23.com as the web hosting company 0 Q) ...com. "In order to as propagated by www.:..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ .J 00 u: . to coerce people to lose faith and love of the monarchy. and stated that he received "vital data from Netfirms. including each and every princess.

. on May 10. while Plaintif was waiting in the security line at the Bangkok airport. Plaintiff asked to see the alleged warrant. Plaintiff remained for approximately two weeks in Thailand. He also visited with friends and traveled by train to the resort town of Hua Hin for three days. 2006. There were approximately ten other people in the office. Plaintiff was interrogated from approximately 7:10 p. Youngyuen' s office. Plaintiff was told by the agents that they had a warrant for his arrest for committing an act of lese majeste. 2006 until approximately 4:50 p. on May 9. In the office at the airport. 26.-~ ~"" . Col. Plaintiff was CI) dd. Upon arriving in Pol. including a videographer and photographer.Jo-.m._. o~ ~8 escorted outside of the airport to an unmarked police car. on May 10. in which he was transported to the DSI. They conducted a pat down search of his body and searched the pockets of his clothing. c ~t. Youngyuen was in charge of the interrogation. Plaintiff was searched again.~~ o~- ~ u: . During that time he stayed in the condominium he owns in Bangkok. 28. Plaintiff was escorted upstairs to Pol. He was finger-printed and photographed.. he was approached by approximately 5-7 agents from the DSI who escorted him out of the security line and to an office at the airport. ~ <~ o~ ~" a.Ju. After waiting in the office for approximately one hour. 25. == .a= :s al0:!. when he was finally released from the DSI. on his way back home to California.. approximately 45 minutes from the airport. but the agents refused to show it to him.:. the agents searched Plaintiffs belongings.m. 2006 until 3:30 a. 27.~~ ~~N 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 They confiscated his personal laptop computer from him. The video~apher appeared to be Complaint -9- . ~~~g o-s. 30. They removed his wallet and searched through the contents. When they arrived at the DSI.. 29. Col..s: (I) S (I) o~ . On May 9. e~ .m. He visited with his deceased brother's wife and his three nieces and nephews. Col. 2006 and from 8:00 a..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 0'" 24. He underwent another pat down search of his body. Youngyuen' s office. 13593883 Pol.m.

At the onset of the interrogation. 0'" recording much of the interrogation.S._ --. but the DS1 officers denied his request saying that it was too late in the night for him to reach anyone at the embassy..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ ~ . She sat silently through the interrogation and did not provide any legal advice to Plaintiff. someone who presented herself as his appointed attorney arrived and told Plaintiff that he needed to cooperate fully and answer all the questions he was asked..~o r-... at the r:r. Col. 36. Plaintiff was subjected to severe psychological and physical stress. 31. 32. Pol. you must cooperate.. and sleep until 3:30 a. i:..J .~~ u... Embassy..10- Complaint .m. 34. 35.... I you want them to live in peace. he was taken to a motel where he was told he could rest.. During the interrogation. <" o~ motel. . interrogation.: . on May 10... The DS1 officers deprived him of food... (]) u: ~ e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 all times..:.J:~ 0-. Youngyuen did not provide Plaintiff with a copy of the posts or any details about the contents..0 ... water.... 33. "I know where your relatives live in Bangkok and California. Eventually. 2006. . Plaintiff was extremely frightened during the course of the He decided that he had no choice but to cooperate fully and answer every question that was asked of him in order to avoid being harmed.8(J!: c:: ti!.J ~ ~. 13593883 . During the interrogation. At that time. Youngyuen accused Plaintiff 0 committing an act of lese majeste by posting articles and comments on Manusaya." The officer specifically mentioned the names of Plaintiff s three daughters and his son and indicated that he knew where they lived. but DS1 guards remained in the room with him at ( S 0. He was permitted to eat breakfast at approximately 7:30 a. and then he was taken back to the DS1 for further interrogation... Col.c. Plaintiff also requested that he be permitted to contact the U. o ~~ " c.:: -e.. The DS1 officers threatened violence against Plaintiffs family..J (]) o~ ..:.m.l U)~~o Ul 13 0 ~ dd. One 0 ~8 the DS1 officers mentioned certain members of Plaintiffs family by name and stated to Plaintiff. Pol.... Plaintiff requested that he be provided with an attorney.

Plaintiff was permitted to look at the document for The document appeared to Plaintiff to be a print-out dd. DSI officers retrieved Plaintiff s confiscated laptop during the They forced Plaintiff to provide his access passwords.S. the email addresses are shown here in redacted form for privacy purposes. .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ ~ 37.. The DSI officers made photocopies of all of the documents in Plaintiffs possession. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pol. Jack Chan. e..g.: o w~ U ~!::. 42. Plaintiff had a small notebook in his possession where he kept personal notations. 41.. at approximately 12:00 a. An IP address can easily be used to locate the physical presence of the computer associated with the IP address.. Plaintiff also saw the email address of his employee. passport..com. including his U. from a computer.J u. on May 2. interrogation. 39. DSI Officers forced Plaintiff to write a statement admitting that he violated Thailand's lese majeste laws and he would never do it again... etc. The email address was That email address had the same IP address as Plaintiffs. phone numbers.. ~8 associated IP addresses. The officers forced him to provide them with all 0 his email addresses and passwords.~o ~ u: ~ sr-:. 40. approximately one minute. 38.. The statement also included words of praise and apology to the 9 While the document shown Plaintiff contained actual email addresses. xxxxxxxx@yahoo.m. Next to his email addresa xxxxxxigjhotmail. bank account numbers.J so I=l ~~~g u.E~ C ~. and copied electronic files containing personal information including his bank account and personal property information.l ~...~~ O:.com. reminders.gtl. 2006." there was his IP address. 13593883 . Col.. The document contained a list of email addresses and their <:~ ow c::. At the end of the interrogation.11 - Complaint . The officers photocopied every page of the passport and the notebook.. During the interrogation. Youngyuen provided the Plaintiff with a document that had Defendant's name and logo at the top.. S ~ Q) Q) 0'" 0::5 ~~ -".::::~ <: . One of the email addresses in the document was Plaintiffs. Only one computer is associated with a particular IP address.

In the days after Plaintiff returned home to California.S. the Plaintiff missed his -"" S ~. Plainti asked by email when the investigation would be closed.m.. Demand for Additional Interrogation in July 2006 48. ~ initial flight to the United States. Col. c:::. on May 10. he was u: :ii E~ c. 2006. Col.~~ ~ g:i. Youngyuen.JO"3="'" ~ 00 ~ Q) 0.. Col. including his ailing mother. Col.. He re-booked a new flight at his own expense the following day and returned to his home in Long Beach. Col.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thai king. Youngyuen who asked Plaintiff to send him copies of any pro-democracy or anti-monarchy materials that he had in his possession.: . 12 13 14 . Plaintiff was forced to write two versions of this statement .-EN ~.s= ~~u~ 15 :s c: cU~ o~ ow o~ <~ w. He was extremely upset and shaken when he returned to his condominium and immediately contacted his family members in California. Plaintiff heard periodic clicking sounds and beeping noises which led him to believe that his phone calls were being monitored.C. Plaintiff scanned some pro-democracy booklets and documents that he had in his possession andemailed them to Pol.~~g ~ Q) . He contacted Plaintiff when he was still in . Pol. Youngyuen traveled to the United States to attend a training course for foreign police and military officers offered by the United States Information Agency in Washington. He took a cab from the DSI to his condominium in Bangkok.. Youngyuen did not provide him with a response.12Complaint . During these phone calls to the U. "'J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 contacted by email by Pol. On his return back to Thailand. 47... 44.J o-a.one in He was not provided with copies of the handwritten Thai and one in English. to tell them what had happened to him. California. 46. Pol.. Because he wanted to appear as if he was continuing to cooperate with the investigation. D. As a result of the interrogation and detention. In July 2006. Plaintiff was finally released from the DSI at approximately 5:00 p. statements. but Pol. Youngyuen had a brief stop between flights in Los Angeles International 13593883 Airport ("LAX"). i. 43. 45.

_~ E r!.2N 0-. 2006 at 10:00 AM .-~ 13 14 d:d.C. Youngyuen confirmed that it was. 50. He brought local Thai newspapers that he thought Pol. Youngyuen contacted the Plaintiff via letters on August 8. 2006 and September 11.15 c cit:. Col. Col. Col. Plaintiff did not bring iPods to the meeting. Youngyuen at LAX. Col... Plaintiff responded to the letter by email and said that he was unable to He was report to the bureau on that date because he had another. Youngyuen made it clear to Plaintiff that he was very g~ disappointed that he did not bring any gifts of value. Youngyuen when his laptop computer would :s"'u. In the letter dated August 8. extremely frightened and believed that he would be arrested and imprisoned if he returned to Thailand. 2006. Col. Col Youngyuen if the S c. Because Plaintiff continued to want to appear cooperative with the investigation. Youngyuen responded that it would not be returned to Plaintiff while the investigation was still pending.:::"- u: . D... requesting that he return to Thailand immediately for further questioning in regards to the lese majeste allegations. Youngyuen met for approximately thirty minutes at a McDonald's restaurant at LAX.0 . 2006.. 55. Col. ~ investigation was still ongoing. <~ ow o~ wU -08 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be returned to him. u. Youngyuen could read on the flight back to Thailand. Pol. 54. Col. o~ 0 tU~ c::. -1 Q) tr-4 U". he agreed to meet Pol. Plaintiff asked Pol. Pol..J ~ ~~~g UN . obligation. Subsequently. Col. Youngyuen told Plaintif that he would like Plaintiff to bring iPods or some other similar items of value home for his children. and asked Plaintiff to meet him at LAX. Col. 56. 52. i:. 13593883 . Youngyuen wrote. During the meeting. During the telephone conversation. "the time has come for you to officially surrender yourself to the investigators of this case ." 57.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ ~ Washington. Plaintiff and Pol.J ~ Q) -a.13- Complaint . Pol. 51.. Pol. Plaintiff asked Pol.. Col. 53. Pol.. you are required to surrender to our bureau on August 24.!:!-o OO::lNO -. and Pol. 49.

and two CDs of royal music.J o: 1=1 (]) (]) interrogated in the U. on - . California. a warrant for his arrest would be issued. 63. 2006 at a hotel room in the Magic Castle Hotel in Hollywood. as well as Public Prosecutor Viched Musikaransee. 61. The interrogations occurred from 10:30 a.gU~ :s ~::.::::'¢" u.2:30 p.. a Video CD and a DVD regarding the royal family.m. i.m. 58.2006 and from 10:30 a.. Plaintif requesting that he return to Thailand for more questioning. and Palace Representative Joe Kashemsant. than for him to return to Thailand where he could be arrested and imprisoned. refused to return to Thailand for fear of being arrested and imprisoned. Pol. Kashemsant gave Plaintif .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ g~ . on November3.. . several tokens of the monarchy as "gifts": an official royal yellow shirt with a royal insignia on the pocket. 2006 Interrogations 59. Col. Youngyuen was present. Plaintiff finally agreed to meet with Thai law enforcement officials in Southern California. On behalf of the Thai government..<..~~ 13 ~ o:u:~·e~ 14 E~~g dd. 62. attempting After these letters. 64.14Complaint . Col.S. During the interrogation. November 2-3. they would fmally conclude the investigation and that he would not be charged with violating lese majeste laws. Plaintiff brought three witnesses. At this interrogation. out of fear for his safety and to attest to his credibility. 2006 which provided that because Plaintiff failed to report to the bureau on August 24. Plaintiff received a second letter from Pol. 65.. 60. Mr. At the onset of the interrogation. Pol. a book celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Thai King's accession to the throne. ~-2:::. Col.m.. the Thai authorities reviewed the documents .. 2006.J O:. Youngyuen continued to persist in to further interrogate Plaintiff by contacting him via email and However.m.. <~ o~ o~ ~u c cd~ o~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13593883 "'8 November 2. 12:45 p.. Youngyuen on September 11. Plaintiff believed that if he cooperated with the officials.. He hoped that it would be safer for him to be S .. -.

67.m. access to and would use when Plaintiff was out of town or unable to personally 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 typed respond to emails. 71. -"... Youngyuen told Plaintiff that without his continued cooperation in the investigation..J 10:30 a. Pol. Plaintiff requested this assurance in writing.BN O-... investments..:<"... interrogation. S ~ . Col. CI)~~O Ul 12 13 0 Q) .. ~. ow 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff stated that he also had real estate and U. At the conclusion of the interrogation.. o~ w~ c::. interrogations at the hotel... 69..m... 70..15 - Complaint . Youngyuen assured Plaintiff that he could travel to Thailand without fear of being arrested and prosecuted. Musikaransee [3593883 . During the second day of interrogation.com and were business email accounts that Mr... Plaintiff was asked to return the subsequent day for further He continued to believe that if he participated in this interrogation.J Q) r:F. .. Youngyuen told Plaintiff that he would complete his investigation and forward his report to the prosecutor's office. Plaintiff was asked by the Thai government officials who else had - cl?j. he returned to the same hotel room on the morning 0 November 3. Pol.. 2006.. Col. Jack Chan had 19 .~O u: ~ E~ u. which began at approximately gg. stock ~8 <~ access to his email accounts. Youngyuen summarized the subject SIgn statements during the of the two interrogations. they would be unable to close the case.t.l s:::= U. 66. Col.~~ a. . Pol. Plaintiff did not receive a copy of these statements. Plaintiff was asked to that were prepared The two statements by Pol.S. xxxxxxxx@yahoo. 68.=v ~ 0 cu:.U_ .. Col.. the investigation would ultimately be concluded and he would not be charged with any crime. but his request was denied. 72. Accordingly.2006..com Plaintiff stated that xxxxxx@hotmail.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ ~ that Plaintiff had scanned and emailed to them shortly after he had returned home to California in July 2006.Jc:ca. The interrogation concluded at approximately 12:45 p. Mr. Plaintiff was asked about his other business ventures apart from Computer Station.= .. At the end of the interrogation on November 2.

.J O-. Col. protests disrupted a major Asian summit and caused riots in These protests continued to smolder until Spring 2010. ~t8o~ 15 c . Pol.. these trials 10 Todd Pittman and Sinfah Tunsarawuth. 13593883 ... In 2009. 27... 78. 2006. This set off a series of internal political struggles between the monarchy and its supporters and those who supported a fully elected constitutional government..: .:::T rUt. 2011.. Often those charged with lese majeste offenses are denied bail and remain in prison for several months awaiting trial.£N til ...m. when ck$. and according to reports.... "Thailand Arrests American for Alleged King Insult.. major buildings were burned. and over 1...~f6 0 13 14 early December 2008.. Escalating Unrest in Thailand and Prosecutions for Lese Majeste 75..: -" Sr-!. blockaded parliament in October 2008.. on November 3. ~ ." Associated Press. Protesters occupied a main government building from late August until 0'" • . Youngyuen stated again that Plaintiff was free to enter and leave Thailand at any time without fear of being arrested or prosecuted. u.. and occupied and forced the closure of Bangkok's airports for several days in the end of2008. wU o~ Q) . a military coup in Thailand overthrew the elected The interrogation ended at approximately 2:30 p.0 f. 73. ninety-two people were killed. 76. As a result of the standoffs.16 - Complaint . Mar. Bangkok. effectively shutting down the commercial and governmental centers of the city. 77..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . government and repealed that nation's constitution.s: S o~ -.:" s:: ow 16 so ~8 .J u~·~o ~ c..c Q) ~ and the prosecution team would then review the report and make a determination as to whether Plaintiff should be prosecuted.. In a number of cases.:E 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 demonstrators occupied main areas in Bangkok... In September 2006. As the political pressure on the Thai monarchy increased.. C...ju..800 were injured..t . 80. 79.~... so had the 10 enforcement of lese majeste laws and the penalties for violations. 74. CIS .I)~~O ..

~:6 ~~~8 ~~. ~ ell -". 11 Human Rights Watch Letter to Prime Minister Yingluck Regarding Your Government's Human Rights Agenda available at h :llwww. Plaintif could only research the individuals and corporations who might have been involved in discreet ways so as not to raise the suspicions of the Thai government. 13593883 -17- Complaint .gc3~ <~ ow o~ C. who had been able to move freely within the United States..and anti-monarchy factions in Thailand intensified.: e. obviously knew how to reach and monitor Plaintiff and his family members. I 1 81. such as the cases of Darunee Chamchoensilpakul. .l ON ~. Palace Representative Joe Kashemsant alerted == ~ 8 Q) Q) . 2009.rime-minister._ have been closed to the public.. and that he would be arrested if he returned to Thailand.J u. In addition. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ck$.~g 0... or the circumstances under which they had done so.hrw.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 J-4 oao~ . 12Id.. and Tanthawut Taweewarodomkul.or news/2011l08/15lhuman-ri hts-watch-Ietter. oU w~ tr: s::::: "'8 Plaintiff by email that he had been charged with lese majeste in a Thai national court.. Particularly harsh punishments have been delivered by the court in who was who several instances. Plaintiff lived in fear of reprisal. 12 82. ~r!.in luckregarding-your-governments-human-r [accesse 16 August 2011]. . Rather than risk becoming one of the political prisoners whose number grew at an alarming rate as strife between pro. The turmoil and violence in Thailand made an inquiry very difficult logistically. given that the Thai government had already identified Plaintiff as a suspect for exactly such offenses. Lese Majeste Charge and Inability to Return to Thailand 83. and those officials..=V ..:E c ~t. This political unrest in Thailand made it impossible for Plaintiff to conduct an investigation that would reveal exactly who was involved with the disclosure of his identity and/or anonymous writings to the Thai government. Any direct inquiries to the government itself or to the same actors who may have disclosed his identity in the first place could have had extremely dangerous consequences for Plaintiff and his family. . received a 13-year prison term.. sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment. On August 25.JO--.

Defendant negligently disclosed Plaintiffs identifying and confidential information to Thai law enforcement officials without regard for the requirements set forth in the Treaty with Thailand on MutUal Assistance in Criminal Matters and contrary to data privacy. Chai's identifying and .com confirmed that it received a complaint regarding Manusaya from the Thai officials.= V" tf~.~~ 13 14 • . 86.j (l) . At a time prior to May9. Since learning of the pending criminal charges on August ?5.. Plaintiff has sought to uncover the means by which the Thai government identified him and connected him with the alleged acts. 85.. 2009. 2005. 2009. In doing so. 90. Because of the very real threat of arrest. addition to the stress and fear he feels as a result of these charges... Civ. has made inquiries with government agencies. Defendant negligently disclosed to Thai law enforcement officials Plaintiff s identifying and confidential information entrusted in its possession. as a result of which Defendant decided to suspend Manusaya's account on June 6..EN 0-.. Plaintiff has been unable to return to Thailand In because he would be arrested and prosecuted for the lese majeste charge._~ ~ Er-:.. 89. First Amendment.: . he felt it necessary to short sell stocks he held in Thailand at a significant loss. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEGLIGENCE Cal. through his counsel. Code § 1714(a) 87. individuals. ~. Since August 25.~g Netfirms. and companies that might have held personal information connecting him or his store's computer with writings on Manusaya.J u:: -o. 2006. 13593883 By the time of Defendant's disclosure of Mr.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 84. u. Plaintiff is unable to visit with his relatives and friends in Thailand and unable to enjoy his property there. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every ~~u~ ~""~ 15 uu o~ r:/) <~ ou ":::i ~8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 86 as if set forth fully herein.. and industry standards. 2009. Plaintiff. PIPEDA. 88.-t ~ s:: (l) ck$.. Defendant 12 ~ ~ g~ E 0. ~ -.18 Complaint . officials.. (J)::3NO . By letter to counsel for Plaintiff on December 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ ~ g~ confidential information to Thai officials. 13593883 . the right to privacy.:E e. so ~ "'8 account holders.v' would result in harm to Plaintiff. Defendant owed a duty to its account holders.: .-~ ~..". 91. 92. Social..com. Defendant breached its duty to the Plaintiff by negligently engaging in the conduct described herein. and the right to due process.. 96. r! rG ~Jl~g '"' dd. 94... not to provide their personal information to any law enforcement authorities or legal agents without a proper court order. 95. Injury But for the actions of Defendant. the International Covenant on Economic. and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Article 5. a country known for overbroad and politically motivated enforcement of its lese majeste laws in violation of the right to freedom of expression..o . As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Netfirms. 93. as provided for in its term of service agreement. and Cultural Rights Article 1.-. ~.19- Complaint .J Q) . It is reasonably foreseeable that if Defendant owed this duty to its E 0. It was reasonably foreseeable that disclosure of Plaintiffs identifying and confidential information to government officials from Thailand. subpoena or warrant..~~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ Q) gt·~~ e. Plaintiff has been deprived of his liberty and freedom within his 13 These rights are expressed in a number of international instruments including but not limited to die International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Articles 17 and 19. Plaintiff would not have suffered any postings on Manusaya advocating for as a result of his anonymous democracy in Thailand and abolition of Thailand's lese majeste laws.i!:.Jo~. leT companies in the United States were well aware of the dangers posed to dissidents in many parts of the world and the consequent obligations those dangers put upon web hosting companies to use due diligence when responding to law enforcement requests for private information that could identify critics and human rights defenders.BN :s ~~ " <~ o~ o~ ~dltl~ o~. it also had a duty to protect the confidentiality of personal identifying information with which it was entrusted by users of its account holders.

All of these events were extremely psychologically damaging to Plaintiff. specifically the Plaintiff cannot safely travel to. taken to the DSI.: . Defendant's negligent conduct constitutes reckless disregard for the 0 8 := ~ c:k$ Q) Q) o~ -. deprived of food and water. Defendant's conduct comes within the definition malicious acts punishable by the assessment of punitive damages because Defendant provided Plaintiff s confidential identifying information to Thai officials when Defendant knew. Plaintif suffered financial losses.. He was detained at the airport in Bangkok.0 ... he was notified that he would be arrested and charged with lese majeste if he ever returns to his native country of Thailand. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions. harshly interrogated and threatened.. As a result of being interrogated at the DSI in Bangkok. and he felt that he needed to short sell his Thai stocks when he was notified that he would be arrested and charged with lese majeste ifhe ever returns to Thailand.000. in an amount to be proven 13593883 actions would place Plaintiffs safety at risk and cause harm to . ~.::: "Of" i3= o"~ . or visit with friends and family in Thailand without facing inevitable arrest and prosecution for violation of lese majeste laws. that it was highly probable that Defendant's Plaintiff.~~ .2N . During the interrogation by the DSI officials. and kept overnight. ~8 < . or should have known.... Finally.J 0:. 98..J u. Plaintiff has suffered severe psychological distress as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover any and all other damages available to him which total amount of damages exceeds $75. He was subsequently interrogated again over the course of two days in the United States..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 0'" native country of Thailand..a.20- Complaint .J u. he missed his return flight to the United States and was forced to purchase a new ticket at his own expense. he has been unable to enjoy his Bangkok condominium. reside in. 99. He was also forced to replace his laptop computer at his own expense. 100. Additionally.~O <alU!: o~ u: ~ s~ o~ ~" C::E c: cit... 97.. Plaintiffs laptop computer was confiscated and never returned to him. ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~~~g 00 s:: 0. rights and safety of Plaintiff.

but are not limited to.o v".. <~ w V 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 international law. and are prohibited by the laws of the state of California.Jo-. or fraudulent business act or practice." defined as any "unlawful. 104. (Deceptive Practices Act).J U. and S ~ ~ Q) o:g . . et seq.. including PIPEDA.. including the Service Agreement and the Privacy Policy." ~~~g g-e. and fraudulent business acts and practices described herein constitute ongoing and continuous unfair business practices within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. Such practices include. . by reference each and every BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS 101. § 45. et seq. the unwarranted intrusion into and provision of Internet users' private electronic communication 13593883 .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 H 0'" at trial... unethical. prohibits "unfair competition. 105. federal law.21 - Complaint . Canadian law.. 13 14 cJd ~ en Q) 0. oppressive. Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17200.Q ~ ~. §17200. international law. The unlawful.~g ~~u~ 15 :s c cat.2N .~\.. including 15 USC.:..: LL.. and their own company policies. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein has been and continues to be deleterious to Plaintiff. unscrupulous and/or substantially injurious to customers." These acts or practices consist of those forbidden by law. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 100 as if set forth fully herein. o~ ow ~8 ~:::.. 102. 106. including Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty with Thailand on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Defendant violated California Business and Professions Code § 17200 by engaging in unlawful business practices through the dissemination of Plaintiff s confidential and identifying information in violation of California law. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE. the laws of Canada. unfair. Defendant's practices described herein offend established public policies and involve business practices that are immoral. . unfair. 107. 103. et seq. The California Business and Professions Code § 17200.:::". cd Er-!.

Article I. restitution and other appropriate relief as provided in Business and Professions Code § 17203.. Section I of the California Constitution and/or the common law. Article I. Plaintiff.. 112. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 108 as if set forth fully herein. 113.EN ~~u~ 15 :s co ~~ ~ ~u tr: ~ <" o~ ":::E ~8 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 information to a foreign country with a record of suppressing the right to free speech without warning or notice to Plaintiff and without regard to Defendant's legal obligation to maintain such information in confidence constitutes a serious invasion of Plaintiff s privacy interests as defined by Art. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff s personal 12 g~ -.::'" 13 14 ~~~8 c.. Section I of the California Constitution. at the very least.. 110. without prior notice to him.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ ~ information or records when Defendant knew or should have known such information would substantially support the deprivation of freedom of speech. Defendant's disclosure of Plaintiffs personally identifiable information. and the common law had a reasonable expectation that the personal information he supplied to Manusaya. under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.... without prior notice. disgorgement of all profits resulting from these unfair business practices. § 1 of the California Constitution.J_tL ~... maintains a legally protected privacy interest in the personal information he provided to Manusaya and that was entrusted to Defendant.·~o u: ~ E~ ~.. the right to privacy and the right to due process of persons who used websites hosted by Defendant to publish political commentary regarding Thailand..22- Complaint .: Q) . .. 108.. which was entrusted to Defendant. would not be disclosed to any third party without his prior consent or. pursuant to the First Amendment. Plaintiff..::"- u.. UN S ~ Q) . THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS 109.. 1.!O. to Thai officials is offensive and objectionable to 13593883 . 111.

including but not limited to emotional distress and financial losses described above. such that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.000. fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff acted with oppression. 114. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE. Compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75. E. notice. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Defendant's practice 0 10 11 12 disclosing personal information without consent. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorneys' § 102L5. Punitive damages. 13593883 . Defendant's violation of Plaintiffs pnvacy rights was willful. or legal justification is widespread and that the privacy interest of many individuals has been violated as a result of Defendant's practices. and without prior notice. or such other sum as may be proven at trial. D. These practices are likely to continue unless and until they are restrained by an injunction requiring. A permanent injunction prohibiting the release of private information personal or corporate account without specific and prior notice to Defendant's holders and to users of the account holders' websites. C. Restitution. at a minimum. Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: A. that Defendant notify its account holders prior to releasing personal information of its account 17 18 19 20 21 holders or the personal information of the users of its account holders' websites. B.23- Complaint .1 a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. fraud and/or malice in disclosing Plaintiffs 9 personal information without his consent. Plaintiff has suffered damages. that were proximately caused by Defendant's violation of Plaintiff s constitutional rights. Attorney's fees and costs of the suit incurred herein to the extent 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 allowed by law. 115. 116.

0-.. ~ ii.EN 13 14 dd.~~ . Bennett WORLDORGANIZAON FORHUMANRIGHTS USA n Allison M. c. Mallgrave Matthew E.L.P. Such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Lefrak (pro hac vice pending) Dated: Augustd!:(_. SNELL & WILMER L.J Cl) xo Cl) ~ [ici!~g tLo roj o~ -0 . CHAI ~ 8 0.2011 By: ~~f/vL ~C istme Sungatr Attorneys for Plaintiff....: .J ~ ~-E.. Mary-Christine Sungaila Deborah S.~g Er!.: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13593883 .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 f-t 00> F.= -e~u ~c8u~ 15 :s c ci~ o~ o~ S58 <~ ".:. ANTHONYN.24- Complaint .:.

ANTHONY N. Bennett WORLD ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS USA Allison M. Mary-Christine Sungaila Deborah S. Lefrak (pro hac vice pending) 9 10 11 By: Mafi-C iStineSungatl 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff. Dated: August d!f' 2011 SNELL & WILMER L.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DEMAND FOR JURy TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on each and every claim set forth herein.P. Mallgrave Matthew E. CRAI 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13593883 .L.25- Complaint .