Swocwmiraannaune 11 B 4 15 16 17 18, 19 20 21 22 2B 24 25 i 26 ga Brian S. Kabateck, SBN 152054 (bsk@kbklawyers.com) Douglas A. Rochen, SBN 217231 Swi (dar@kbklawyers.com) KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP JUN 23 2018 644 South Figueroa Street : see Los Angeles, CA 90017 O Sem Gams sncegaye ice Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Areu By, epaty Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 41364 Attorneys for Plaintiff Cert 7 - BBV OEL 80.127 067 2016 TRIAL 12/237 2o6 090:06725! one, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 585886 KEITH CHEUNG, an individual CASE NO. BC Plein COMPLAINT FOR: ‘2 1, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT 2. NEGLIGENCE PETER RODGER, an individual; LI| 3° Rarge IMPRISONMENT CHIN RODGER, an individual; | 4° VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, a 1983 Califomia governmental entity; SANTA VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §52.1 BARBARA COUNTY —SHERIFF’s DEPARTMENT, a __ California | JURY TRIAL DEMANDED governmental entity; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA, a California governmental entity; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants. 8 mt Ss BOZSHIO ?# La1303y Oe coros ooras wd stza 8 saros ore, USC. eases: ‘COMPLAINTaaueowen 10 rt 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff KEITH CHEUNG ("Plaintiff") brings this Complaint, alleging against Defendants PETER RODGER, an individual; LI CHIN RODGER, an individual; COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, a California governmental entity, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF’s DEPARTMENT, a California governmental entity, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA, a California governmental entity; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive” (“Defendants”) as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Atal relevant times, Plaintiff was a resident of the County of Santa Barbara, State of California, 2. Atal relevant times, Defendant Peter Rodger was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, 3. Atal relevant times, Defendant Li Chin Rodger was a resident of the County of Ventura, State of California. 4. Defendant County of Santa Barbara is a governmental entity located in the County of Ventura, State of California, 5. Defendant Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department is a governmental entity located in the County of Ventura, State of California. 6. Defendant University of California Santa Barbara is a governmental entity located in the County of Ventura, State of California, 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, representative, alter ego or otherwise, of defendants and/or their alter egos named herein as DOES 1 through 50 inclusive are presently unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and are therefore sued by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50 when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DOES 1 through 50 were authorized to do and did business in California, Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that DOES 1 through 50 were and/or are, in some manner or way, responsible for and liable to Plaintiff for the events, happenings, and damages hereinafter set forth below. -1- ‘COMPLAINT@ e | 1 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that all Defendants, 2. |) including the fictitious Doe Defendants, were at all relevant times acting as actual agents, captive 3. |] agents or brokers, conspirators, ostensible agents, partners, brokers and/or joint ventures and 4. || employees of all other defendants, and that all acts alleged herein occurred within the course and 5 || scope of said agency, employment, partnership, joint venture, conspiracy and/or enterprise, and with the express and/or implied permission, knowledge, consent, authorization and ratification of their co-defendants; however, this allegation is pleaded as an “altemative” theory wherever not doing so would result in a contradiction with other allegations. Cr 9. All allegations in this complaint are based on information and belief and/or are 10 || likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 11 |} discovery. Whenever allegations in this complaint are contrary or inconsistent, such allegations 12. || shall be deemed alternative. 13 10. At all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was the co-tortfeasor of each of the 14 || other Defendants in doing the things alleged. 15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16 11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action by virtue of the fact that this is a civil 17 || action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the jurisdictional 18 |} minimum of this Court. 19 12. Venue is proper because one or more of the Defendants reside and do business in 20 || the County where the action is commenced and, therefore, it is a proper court for the trial of the 21 |! action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 395. 22 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 23 13, This claim arises out of killing spree that was perpetrated by local resident Elliot 30 24 || Rodger (“Rodger”) on May 23, 2014 in Isla Vista, California, near the campus of University of 25 |! California, Santa Barbara. This killing spree resulted in six deaths and thirteen other injuries, 26 |} including those suffered by this claimant, Keith Cheung. w 14. Rodger is the son of Defendants Peter Rodger and Li Chin Rodger. uw -2- COMPLAINT10 1 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 17a 15. Defendants, at all times mentioned herein, and prior to the date of the incident, had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Elliot Rodger’s dangerous propensities and desire to cause injury to himself and others, and failed to exercise due care to prevent and/or mitigate those known dangers. 16. On or about June 4, 2011, Elliot Rodger (“Rodger”) moved to Isla Vista to attend the summer session at Santa Barbara City College. On or about the spring of 2012, Rodger dropped his spring semester classes and barely left his room. 17. Plaintiff contends on or about November 2012, frustrated after he didn’t win a lottery jackpot drawing, Rodger “threw a wild tantrum, screaming and crying for hours on end,” all the while thrashing the furniture with a wooden practice sword. On information and belief, this screaming was overheard by Rodger’s neighbors and the apartment management. He called his parents complaining that he was a 21 year old virgin unable to get a girlfriend or make friends and he expressed he would never be happy. Rodger’s parents arranged for him to begin seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Charles Sophy. 18. During November 2012, Rodger becomes serious about executing the “Day of Retribution,” an event he had been planning since his arrival in Santa Barbara in which Rodger planned to massacre young people in the streets of Isla Vista to get “revenge” on them. Rodger purchased a Glock 34 semiautomatic pistol from Goleta Gun & Supply, signing all the paperwork in his own name. 19, Following, in April of 2013, Rodger posted hateful and deeply misogynistic and racist material under his own name on various websites including but not limited to specific posts on: Wizardchan, a forum for male virgins; PuaHlate, a site for failed pickup artists; Bodybuilding.com, a web community for bodybuilding enthusiasts; and his own YouTube channel, where he posted videos of himself ranting in angry and threatening ways. One of the videos posted on Reddit.com spurred commenters to question Rodger’s sanity, with one commenter saying “If this isn't a troll, then I bet we find out this guy is a serial killer. I'm getting a strong Patrick Bateman vibe from him.” -3- COMPLAINT10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 90 24 25 » 26 20. Virtually all of the content Rodger had posted online was easily discoverable with simple Gcogle searches of his name. 21. Thereafter, in the spring of 2013, Rodger purchased a Sig Sauer P226 pistol and several boxes of ammunition 22. On or about July 20, 2013, Elliot Rodger decided to walk around in Isla Vista and attend a party so he could meet new people. 23. While in attendance, Elliot Rodger climbed onto a 10-foot ledge where others were sitting in an effort to engage their interest in conversation, 24, Plaintiff contends that nobody spoke with Elliott Rodger, and frustrated with the group, Mr. Rodger began to insult them, specifically the girls in the group. This conduct resulted in banter back and forth where Elliott Rodger began to shove the women in the group 25. Mr. Rodger, unable to push anyone over, fell off the ledge fracturing his left ankle. As walking away, he mistakenly went back to the wrong house to demand the sunglasses he left behind. When he would not leave, the occupants of this house beat him up, which was reported to Defendant Santa Barbara County Sheriff on July 21, 2013. This case was suspended by the Sheriff's Office pending leads. Plaintiff alleges that Rodger returned home, bruised and crying and told a neighbor at the Capri Apartments “I’m gonna kill all those motherf***kers and kill myself.” 26. On or about July 21, 2013, Rodger called his father and told him he had been injured. Rodger’s father drove up from Los Angeles to take him to the hospital. At the hospital, two Santa Barbara County Sheriff officers interviewed Rodger, who made up a story that he had been pushed off the ledge by bullies. The officers interviewed other persons who said Rodger was the only aggressor and had targeted women. The police did no further follow up and the matter was dropped, 27. On or about January 15, 2014, Rodger became annoyed at his roommates because he did not like the smell of their cooking. Rodger responded by repeatedly hiding or taking his roommates’ pots and pans so they could not cook. His roommates repeatedly asked, and then repeatedly demanded, that Rodger retum their property. Eventually, when Rodger did not, his roommate took some candles and candle holders that belonged to Rodger and again demanded -4- COMPLAINT~Aaueuen 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 Rodger return his pots and pans. Rodger responded by placing Hong under “citizen's arrest” and calling the Santa Barbara County Sheriff Department. 28. When officers arrived all parties were interviewed and his roommate was arrested for violation of Penal Code 488—Petty Theft, which was ultimately dismissed due to insufficient evidence). 29. At that time, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff Department did not conduct any investigation into Rodger, did not do a background check on Rodger, did not do a gun check on Rodger, and did not look online to investigate Rodger. 30. On or about early 2014, Rodger started making specific plans to carry out the “Day of Retribution.” He set April 26, 2014 as the date. He would later re-set the date to May 23, 2014. 31. In approximately April of 2014, Rodger uploaded numerous videos to YouTube which again expressed his jealousy and rage toward women, minorities, and people who are sexually active. These videos, including one titled “Why do girls hate me?”, revealed Rodger to be an unstable, vengeful, jealous, and dangerous individual. 32. On or about April 30, 2014, a week after videos were uploaded, Defendants received a call from the Santa Barbara County Mental Health center requesting a welfare check on Elliot Rodger after his mother, among others, had reviewed YouTube videos posted by Elliot Rodgers that raised issues as to his mental health causing concerning that he may be a danger to himself or others. 33. Employees and/or agents of Defendants Santa Barbara County Sheriff, County of Santa Barbara, and University of California Santa Barbara responded to the mental health welfare call to assess the situation. 34. With reckless and deliberate indifference to the health and safety of Rodger and the ‘general public, Defendants failed to properly and full respond to the mental health welfare check, including, but not limited to: a. Defendants failed to watched any part of the videos Rodger posted prior to this, investigation to determine his mental well-being; eS. ‘COMPLAINT20 Sc eax Aan ewn i 12 13 4 1s 16 uke 18 19 20 ai 2 — 24 25 26 27 @ 28 b. Defendants failed to conduct any online check for other posting where Rodger demonstrated intent to harm himself and/or others; €. Defendants failed to verify the presence of weapons in the home and failed to check the gun registry knowing full well that Rodger’s family was concemed about Elliot's mental state ; 4. Defendants failed to request entry to the home to confirm whether he possessed any instrumentalities to harm himself and/or others; and €. Defendants failed to consider available relevant information about the historical course of Rodger’s mental disorder including, but not limited to, evidence presented by one or more of his family members and/or other professional persons regarding, his mental health, 35. Plaintiff contends that the conduct would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or to entertain a strong suspicion, that the person detained is mentally disordered and is a danger to himself or others. 36. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants had access to and information concerning specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his or her belief or suspicion that Rodger was a danger to himself and others. 37. On or about May 23, 2014, Rodger emailed his manifesto to his parents, family friends, and at least one therapist after killing his two roommates (Hong and Wang) and a visiting friend of theirs (Chen) with knives and other weapons in their apartment. Rodger then headed out into Isla Vista to cary out a shooting rampage that left three more people dead and fourteen wounded. 38. Leaving the scene in his car, he drove to a sorority house, where he shot four people outside, killing two female students. He then drove to a nearby delicatessen and shot to death a male student who was inside. 39. Thereafter, he sped through Isla Vista, shooting at pedestrians, wounding several of them, and striking four others with his car, including Plaintiff Keith Cheung who was riding his -6- ‘COMPLAINTSew rx 9 ul 12 3 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 bike homeé after covering a shift for a coworker as a lifeguard at the University of California, Santa Barbara recreation center. 40. Plaintiff was about a block away from home when Rodger came speeding down the street in his black BMW, hitting him from behind, Plaintiff flipped into the air and went through the windshield of Rodger’s BMW. When the BMW crashed, Cheung was ejected from the windshield and onto the ground with serious injuries. 41. Despite his injuries, Cheung was handcuffed by local authorities prior to being transported to the hospital in violation of his constitutional rights. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TORT CLAIMS ACT (CTCA) 42, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference into this cause of action each and ‘every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this Complaint. 43. Plaintiff has complied with all requirements for bringing suit, including but not limited to, sending Defendants a Notice of Intent to Sue Letter and complying with the requirement that a government claim be rejected as to government defendants. Thus, prior to filing suit, Plaintiff made a government claim to each defendant for which such claim was required. Each government claim complied with California law, and Plaintiff's government claims were rejected by operation of law. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (Plaintiff against Defendants Peter Rodger, Li Chin Rodger and Does 1-10) 44. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference into this cause of action each and every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this Complaint. 45. On or about May 23, 2014, Plaintiff was a pedestrian riding his bicycle in the town of Isla Vista when Rodger, driving a black 2008 BMW 328i (“Subject Vehicle”), that was owned, registered and/or controlled by Defendants, intentionally struck Plaintiff with the vehicle throwing him up into the windshield and onto the street. (“Subject Incident”). 46. Plaintiff suffered extensive injuries as a result of the Subject Incident. 47. Rodger was subsequently captured by police after he committed suicide. Bie COMPLAINTSearle WW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a1 22 ~ 25 N w 26 ~ a7 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Elliot Rodger suffered from mental disorders which made him unfit and incompetent to be in possession of, own, and/or operate, a motor vehicle because of the unreasonable risk of harm to others that was thereby created. 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant hereto, Defendants and each of them, knew, or from the circumstances should have known, that Elliot Rodger was unfit and incompetent to be in possession of, own, and/or operate, a motor vehicle, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others. 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, controlled and/or effectively owned the Subject Vehicle and controlled Elliot Rodger’s use of the Subject Vehicle. 51. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, entrusted the Subject Vehicle to Rodger despite their actual and/or constructive knowledge of the unreasonable risk of harm to others thereby created. 52. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent entrustment, Plaintiff suffered serious harm and damages according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (Plait 53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though against Defendants and Does 11-20 ) fully set forth herein. 54. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the performance of mental health related services to Rodger, specifically including, but not limited to, a duty to fully investigate the mental health well-being of Rodger in order to determine whether Rodger posed a threat of harm to himself or others through available relevant information about the historical course of Rodger’s mental disorder including, but not limited to, evidence presented by one or more of his family members and/or other professional persons regarding his mental health COMPLAINT10 nt 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 55; Plaintiff contends that Defendants breach their standard of care by failing to act with reasonable care in the assessment and investigation of Rodger’s conduct, which provide actual and/or constructive evidence that would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or to entertain a strong suspicion, that the person is mentally disordered and is a danger to himself or others. 56. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants breach their standard of reasonable care despite having access to and information concerning specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted a belief or suspicion that Rodger was a danger to himself and others. 57. Defendants knew or should have known that Rodger would foreseeably cause very serious injury and/or damage to himself and/or others. 58. Defendants breached their duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff by failing to exercise due care under the circumstances. 59. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions described herein Plaintiff suffers from severe injuries and damage according to proof. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE IMPRISONMENT (Plaintiff against All Defendants County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department and Does 21-50) 60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference into this cause of action each and every allegation set forth in each and every paragraph of this Complaint. 61. At the time of the Subject Incident described above, Plaintiff was wrongfully restrained, confined, and/or detained by Defendants when they intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his freedom of movement by use of physical force and restraint. 62. The wrongful restraint, confinement, and/or detention compelled Plaintiff to stay somewhere for some appreciable time. 63. Plaintiff did not knowingly or voluntarily consent to the wrongful restraint, confinement, and/or detention, oor ‘COMPLAINTwk wn 64; Plaintiff was harmed and offended by Defendants’ conduct. 65. Defendant Nulick’s conduct was a direct and proximate cause of serious injuries to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Plaintiff against Defendants County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, University of California Santa Barbara and Does 21-50) 66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 67. _Atall times material to this Complaint, Defendants were acting under color of the law and authority in violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights as herein alleged under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment is made applicable to the States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 68. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure and/or a search and unlawful intrusion on her bodily integrity by engaging in conduct that exercises an abuse of power and authority that shocks the conscience. 69. Plaintiff was subjected to an unreasonable and an unlawful search and seizure without probable cause where Defendants unlawful and intentionally intruded within Plaintiff's intimate sgace by means of improper and unwanted touching and detention in the absence of probable cause 70. As result of the violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights, Defendants, and each of them, are liable to Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 71. Moreover, Defendants recklessly and with deliberate indifference created a dangerous condition by failing to reasonably investigate, reasonably perform any background check, and reasonably investigate the online postings of Rodger as part of conducting his “wellness check” despite the fact that they had been made aware of Rodger’s online postings and violent intentions, as further described above. -10- COMPLAINTaA auneen © 10 ul 12 13, 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a1 2 2B 24 25 > 26 72; The acts and/or omissions of Defendants, as described above, were committed under color of state law, pursuant to official written and/or unwritten policy and custom of Defendants that included, but is not limited to, failing to adequately investigate individuals subject to a “wellness check,” failing to adequately train employees on investigative technique, failing to adequately supervise employees, and failing to wam potential victims about the dangerous propensities of individuals under investigation. 73. Defendants knew or should have known that serious injury would result from this inadequate investigation as part of its custom and policy. 74, Defendants, and their agents and employees acting on their behalf, were aware of this policy and custom and used their positions to carry out that policy of deliberate indifference in investigations. Defendants’ policy and custom of reckless indifference in the investigative process, thus violating his rights as guaranteed under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California. Among other things, defendants deprived Plaintif?’s due process right through the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. 75. — Defendants knowingly, recklessly, or with deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff's rights, maintained, fostered, condoned, approved of, and/or ratified an official policy, practice, procedure, or custom of permitting the occurrence of wrongful conduct as descried herein, and/or improperly, inadequately, and with deliberate indifference and reckless disregard the rights of persons, failed to properly train, supervise, monitor, or take corrective action with respect to their employees’ wrongful conduct as described herein, so that each one of them is legally responsible for all of the injuries and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiff. 76. These injuries have caused Plaintiff to suffer general damages in an amount to be determined by proof at tral 77. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been required to incur attorneys’ fees and will continue to incur attorneys! fees, all to Plaintiff's damage in a sum to be proved at trial and recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §52.1 enle ‘COMPLAINT10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 27 © 28 (Plaintiff against Defendants County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, University of California Santa Barbara and Does 21-50) 78, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 79. — The conduct of Defendants, by violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search and violation of policy and custom of reckless indifference in the investigative process, thereby violating his rights as guaranteed under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California, constituted interference with the exercise of enjoyment by Plainti:f of rights secured by the Constitution of laws of the United States, or secured by the Constitution or laws of the State of California, including interference with her right to be secure in her person and free from unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Cal. Const. Art. 1 sec. 13 as well as Cal. Civ. Code § 43, and the right of protection from bodily restraint and improper touching. 80. Pursuant to California Government Code $815.2, Defendants are liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of its employees, including Defendants herein, whose tortious conduct was a cause in the damages and injuries to Plaintiff. 81. As a direct cause of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff's rights pursuant to California Civil Code §52.1 were violated, causing injuries and damages in an amount to be proved at the time of tril. 82. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been required to incur attorneys’ fees and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees, and pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 are entitled to recovery of said fees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order or judgment against Defendants as follows: First, Second, Third, Causes of Action 1. For general damages in an amount according to proof, -12- ‘COMPLAINTfET4 OE 10 i 12 13 14 = 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 2B 24 25 26 27 28 For special damages in an amount according to proof, For legal interest on judgment from the filing of this Complaint to the date of For post-judgment interest at the legal rate; For costs of suit incurred herein; and For any other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action judgment; 5. 6. = Dated: June 23, 2015 For general damages in an amount according to proof For special damages in an amount according to proof, For Attomey’s Fees and Costs For legal interest on judgment from the filing of this Complaint to the date of For post-judgment interest at the legal rate; For costs of suit incurred herein; and For any other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP eige ‘COMPLAINT1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all claims and causes of action in this lawsuit, Dated: June 23, 2015 KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP Dougids A. Rochen Attomeys for Plaintiff Sewer. ll 12 HEE 4 15 16 7 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 wi -14- COMPLAINT* e@ cw-019 eR FoR COURTUSEORY Douglas Rochen SB#217231 FILED KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP Supertor Cou Of Calteroia 644 $. Figueroa Street, Las Angeles, CA 90017 "Conary Of Los Angeles resneneno: (213) 217-5000 raxwo: (213) 217-5010 srronvz ron ans, Plaintiff, KEITH CHEUNG JUN 23 2015 lsurenion courr oF caurcrwia county oF LOS ANGELES sraeeraconess: 11] N, Hill Street Shera. py ene vet anne scores: Same as Above Depity ‘erymozr coot: Los Angeles, CA 90012 woe Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Central District, aa Cheung vs. Rodger, et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation OSE MAE BCS 858 Untied CC} Umit | Goumter CI saser - |_____ ve © 88 8 816 demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant |“ Sesonn) eOGren|_ Meats eeay Se | THems 1-6 below must bo completed (500 insiructons o7 300 2). f- Check one box below for the case type that best describes ths case: (J Auto (22) J Breach of contractwarranty (08) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) [1 Uninsured motoris:(46) (Rule 3.740 collections (09) Antitrust trade regulation (03) Other PUPOWD (Personal injuryiProperty — _} Other collections (09) (J) construction detect (10) DamageWrongful Death) Tort Ineurance coverage (18) (2) mass tort (40) ‘Asbestos (04) otter contract (37) Securities itigation (28) Product lability (2¢) pet Property EnvironmentalToxic tort (30) Nese apie 8) St donasione ee eaaccee eee pe lees. cote 1 ppm eerste fa Non-PIIPOIWD (Other) Tort [21 wrongful eviction (33) ‘types (41) [1 usiness rntairbusines practic 07) [] ober est property (26) Enforcement of dudgment T) conrais0 Uninet Detaner (7 enercement of sarent (20) {=} petamation (13) ‘Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint TS Fravs 16) Residentiai (22) © arco F) inteticctuat property (19) TO) ngs (38), otter compan (not specified above) (42) [—] Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review: Miscellaneous Civil Petition TS) other nor-PUPDIVID tort (35) LJ Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate govemance (21) Employment TJ Petition re: arbitration award (11) =) omer potion not specified above) (43) ‘Wrongful termination (36) (2) wnt ot mandate (02) Other employment (15) [71 other jusicial review (39) 2, Thiscase LJis [ZJisnot — complex under nile 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requifing exceptional juicial management: 2.) Large number of separately represented parties. [] Large number of witnesses (7) Extensive mation practice raising ditficut or novel__e. [_] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts Issues that wil be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, on a federal court cc. (] Substantial amount of documentary evidence +, [1 substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply) Number of causes of ac Tris case [_Jis 258 Mihere are any known related cases, le and serve a notice of related case. (You may use frm CM016) Date: June 23, 2015 ‘Douglas A. Rochen, Esq. (SB# 217231) CTYPE OR PNT RANEY TAO Gr PARTY OR ATTORREY FOR ATTY NOTICE ~|_# Plaintif must file this cover sheet with the first paper fled in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions, ‘+ File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rue. ,_| * If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all '5] other parties to the action or proceeding. | + Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. monetary b.[] nonmenetary; declaratory or ijunctve relief ¢-[—Jpunitive h eee CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ‘Ries Soak nyse SSS py thet yo nay, 310INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are fling a fist paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must ‘complete and ile, along with your fist paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile slatisics about the types and numbers of cases fled. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check ‘one box for the case type that best describes the case. Ifthe case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in tem 1, check the more specific one. if the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best incites the primary cause of action To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your inital paper, Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper fled in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 ofthe California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money ‘owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of inteest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in \which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collecions case does not include an action Seeking the following: (1) tor damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real propery, (4) recovery of personal propery, of (5) a prejudgment wrt of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant fies responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case willbe subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740 To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the ‘case is complex. Ifa plant believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the Calfornia Rules of Court, this must be indicated by ‘completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If @ plantif designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the ‘complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may fle and serve no later than the time of its fist appearence a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation thatthe case is not complex, or, ifthe plantif has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. (CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES cM-010 sto Tort conga broisinaly Complex Cian Cal ~~ — Riccat Coma Robe oes cece terats secetsfnetacae ‘ssnatedeReauton unmet fie el fee gine Sine antes rae oat thei on 0) She a Sena Titec tn pti end Se ec ees venigan cereal iran Cmmpe Ca cite LEON era vy verry ahs fey cnotox Property Damagerongt Beth) ner Breach ef Conracearanty (ise pe lated abe) (a) oop colar. nay on soe Speen psastos (0) pene Ct ez) SM econ Cae Seer Pat See gw Geter Pome hntt Sitesi 5 ‘ict Oean Ca anf tug on ol murs Soa (t prevonaly eno se toxic/environmental) (24) complex) (18) ‘Sister State Judgment Pree e Sttion Sener ee ers ieseuapesee- iter Covane pepe Sie agers one conan (3 oat cyt coh as cee eon pes ane i senneseapeowntbonce congener gre ee 2 Premises Labity (9. ip Eminent Gonaives ‘scelangous vil Complaint a pees ey ret Baty nunfPO1O ong Ett 5) SiS pst (e.g,, assault, vandalism) ‘Other Real Property (e.g.. quit Sle) (26) eee Intentional infiction of ‘Whit of Possession of Real Property Injunclive Reket Oni y Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure. nes ive Relief Oniy (non- 2 wee het ae et ery preterit weoarean one fisoto 2 Serene cortn Non PIPONND (ther Tor ees ose orien) agree Tear Sess Union Doin ce Co i Sia) * entrboncom CWB ode, feral 2) colneous Ci Fetion eters fio See ie case mene tege ron a a ge Secs arm cram Dotrtono Sander b) ‘eras Commu Renta) ter Paton (at acooed ie eee Givi Harassment rewsite ee 0) cere Fast reser 1) Agente er ele 8 water ceca oer cae Fe Yanamue cot en nN Other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court, Pettion for Neme Change {cat meats or eae, Case Mater Pelion for Relief From Late 2 ae on NS Ral vince ies cou Case sa “Emolpon he (one Fee emia) ner sien 9) oer Gt at 2 Other Employment (15) Review of Health Officer Order Nerf gpea-ater ® Commissioner Appeats [ieee At] CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FamersPB. e e PT rung ve Redes tal “=~ BES BE RRG . CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND. ‘STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.0 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Item 1. Check the types of hearing ang fil in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: wry tri? WZ] ves cussaction? CL] ves umeocase? Clves Time esrimaTeD For TRIALS? _C] HouRS/ (7 oavs ltem Il. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps ~ If you checked "Limited Case", skip to Item Ill, Pg. 4): Step 1: After fist completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your casein the eft margin below, and, tothe right in Columa A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected Step 2: Check one Superior Cour type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature ofthis case. ‘Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies tothe type of action you have checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.0. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below) 1. Class actions must be fled in the Staley Mosk Courthouse, canal dstict. 6. Location of property or pammanentiy garaged vehicle. 2 May be ted in cerral (oer couny. oro boy muryipropery damage). 7. Locabon where puttioner resis, 5. Location whore couse st action rave 8 LScaton wherein dotendonvrespendent functions whol E [eeaton were Ee ay, dst of damage gonad, 8. Location where one more of he pares resige. 5: [eeaton where perfotmancs requred or Gelencant resides 10: [Geaton of Labor Commissoner Oee ‘Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item Ill; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration. eo Ao 22) 3 aro 2 Uninsured Motorist (46) D_A7110 Personal injury/Property Damage/Wrongtul Death - Uninsured Motorist | 1.,2.. 4 © AOTO Asbestos Property Daroge 2 ‘Asbestos (04) ren . zs © A722 Asbestos - Persona inuytiongh Death 2 BS | pronruatay2 | o a7z00 Produc Lebiy (rt stesso weenie) 1288 £3 ons © AT210 Medal Nalractce- Pryscans 8 Sureons ha OES | wedcarnaroctee 45 a Ee 3 A720 Oto Profesional Heal Cre Mapractce ta iE coe © A280 Prices Li (699 ae tah a wee cents; | A720 Inerenal Body nunyPreper DanapeMonghi Deamon, | | Sent anata) se WoredGeat |. arzro mao! ten fEnatirl Oates ha lo @ 7220 Other Personal Injury!Property DamagelWrongtul Death tnd Im/LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 \LLASC Approves 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of 4awe. e e Cheung vs. Rodger, eta —— fhe es SAS usnassTon(o7) | A6020 OnerComercs/Cusness Tor at foudbresa eteotacy | 1,3, ge iv Rights (08) 12 AG005 Ci Rights/Dicesination 44.243. Bs 33 Defamation (13) | 0. A600 Datamation (sanceribe) 42, as Fatt) © A013 Fav (no correc) 128 5 (© MOT Lops Mapacice 12s BB | rots! nesionc 2) —— a3 13. AG050 Other Professional Malracio (not maical rep!) 1.2.3 ones) 1 AaL25 Other Non Persona niyPropery Dame tot 28 | § Wrongful Termination (36) [0 A6037 Wrongful Termination 414243 E 2 1 A028 Cir Employment Compan Cove 12.8 2 | omereneleyment (ts E Erelemer'8) | gsi Later Commissioner Apes ‘0 1 ASIO4 Breach of Renal ease Goad (rotunavtaGeanererworgk |g ouaens : axeec of Contac Waren Caneel Wart |e geoos conkaciiarany reach Seber it (nofaushesgence) [28 (not insurance) O A6019 Negligent Breach of ContractWarranty (no fraud) hadnt (D_ A8028 Other Breach of ContractWarranty (not fraud or negligence) 12,8 i 1 Ae002 Cotectans Case Sler Pit 2.8.8 2 Collections (09) g © 8012 Oter Promissory Noe!Calecons Case 2.5 Insurance Coverage (18) | 0 6015 insurance Coverage (not complex) 1,258. . 0 A8009 Contractual Fraud a oe a . oterconea(sr) | A6ts1 Toreus erence naa © E027 Oter Contact Depot brenchnsuncatauegigene) 1.2.8.8, Taibo Tmyoementve=* Tq) A790) ErmrentDonatiCondenaten Nunbarf parca 2 a 26 - 1 ABOI8 Mocgage Forecosure S| cerreairroseryi2s) | A082 axe Te ze 13 Asie0 Other eal Property oa erinent domain ndrttnart eecesu) [newt Bataner-Commerda! cy aggzs_Uniawts Oetainer-Commeril (ot rugs or wrongful evcion) 2.8. | Unawuroewinerresidental | go20 Unawil Deane Resident (ot rugs o wrong eviction) 2.8 Sa ; cE | eeiemarares, [estar unams sane ron recnne 28 * Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38) | © A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs. 2,6. |-LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 FASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of 42 Cheung vs. Rodger, eta Asset Foret (05) | ABIO8 Asset Foriure Case 2.6 3 | Petionreativaton(t1) |. AB115 Paton CompelConknVacaeAiaton 2.5 é ABST Wit Adminisatve Mandamus 2.8 3 tet andate(02) |) A852 Wat Mandamus on Umted Cout Case Mater 2 3 A862 Wt Ofer inted Court Case Review 2 ter Juicl Review (29) | AGI60 Oter Wid Review 2.8 sg __ [AmtrsvTroveRepsaton(03)] 0 A6009 Anvrutrage Reguaton 128 % | conamcten deea(i0) | 2 6007 Consweton Detect 1.2.8 SB] Ceinsieverste Mass Tort ty 46006 Ciaims Inching Mass Tort 1.2.8 3 | seeneunmincty [0 Aas Sone Lise Cue ea 2 Toxicon & enim ny | 8090 Tone TonEnvonmanta 142.808 E | ingurarce Coverage Clai™® | Ag014 Insurance CoverageSubrogation complex case ony) 142,508, 1D AGi4t Sister Sate Judgment 2 ee © AGt60 Aosvactof Judgment 2 ee a 1 ASIO7 Confesion of. dort (onomesic relations) 2 3 ef ucement(20) | Asr40_ Adminitrative Agency Aware oot urged axes) 2, as 2 AGI14 PetitonCertcate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2 © AGt12 Other Enorcoment of Judgment Caso 2.8.0 ———| o RICO T._AG059 Recketeeang (RICO) Case 12.8 £8 16030 Decry Reet Oly 2a a5 es Seer ny 28 2 | (Not Specitied Above) (42) | 46011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortinon-complex) 1.2.8 G_A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortinon-complex) 12,8 Fanpop Copaatan era CxpaaEON 113 Patneatip an Corporate Governance Case 2.8 7 © AS121 Chi Harassment 2.3.8 oe 1D A6123 Workplace Harassment 2.3.8 78 tverPettons |. ASI24 EderDependent ait Abuse Cate 2.3.9 as (wet Syustes low) |. A890 Eteion Comat 2 A = () (O._A6110 Petition for Change of Name 2.7. ® D_ A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law 2,3.,4,,8. “ 1D. A6100 Other ivi Ptiton 2.9 \LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 PASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3of 4Sore {tem Il, Statement of Location: Enter the address ofthe accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in Item Il, Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for fling in the court location you selected. REASON: Check the appropriate boxes forthe numbers shown | 4926 Liano Drive under Column ¢ forthe typeof action that you have selected for this ease 1.02, 03. @4. 05.6. 07,08. Os, O10 Woodland Hits ca [otsea Item IV, Declaration of Assignment: | deciare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe tate of Calfonia thatthe foregoing i true ‘and correct and that the above-entitled matter is property filed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk ‘courthouse in the Central District of the Supenor Cour of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc, § 382 et seq., and Local Rule 2.0, subds. (),(c) and (4). Dated: June 23, 2015 tfc OF AN ORNEYIFUNG PART) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY ‘COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition 2. if fling a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010. 4. Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. o3r1), 5. Payment in full ofthe fing fee, unless fees have been waived, 8. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form C1V-010, ifthe plaintiff or petitioner is a ‘minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons, 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum ‘must be served aiong with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case. Gicw 109 (Rev. 031) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 20 ASC Approved 02-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4