P. 1
Casey Affleck sued for $2 million in sexual harassment lawsuit

Casey Affleck sued for $2 million in sexual harassment lawsuit

|Views: 369|Likes:
Published by LawsuitMania
***************************************************************

: www.LawsuitMania.com

***************************************************************
***************************************************************

: www.LawsuitMania.com

***************************************************************

More info:

Published by: LawsuitMania on Jul 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/23/2015

pdf

text

original

• l

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
"-
...J 13
...J
vi
V'l
U.J ~ 14
Qj
Z'<o
o ~ 0
c:::::2 15
« 2 .-::
~ a :;
tv>
~ <;:! 16
U.J E;
...J
...J i'
-
::E f- 17
a
5
z
:: 18
<
'"
'"
:0:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
i~~~ ~
.... ~ ~
". '. 28
~~ !

.'
'\
"
I"'~I
I~.: 1 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LOUIS R. MILLER, State BarNo. 54141 smiller@millerbarondess.com

BRIAN PROCEL, State Bar No. 218657 bprocel@millerbarondess.com

MIRA HASHMALL, State Bar No. 216842 mhashmall@millerbarondess.com MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone: (310) 552-4400

Facsimile: (310) 552-8400

Attorneys for Plaintiff Amanda White

AMANDA WHITE, an individual;

Plaintiff,

v.

CASEY AFFLECK, an individual; FLEMMY PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

SC442321

CASE NO. _

COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) SEXUAL HARASSMENT (2) RETALIATION

(3) FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT/RET ALIATION (4) CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (5) BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT (6) UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(7) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(8) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

69783.5

ORIGINAL

COMPLAINT

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Po. 0
-' 0
.. 13
-' ~
,; V>
V> §
UJ ~ 14
OJ [:)
Z '< ~
0'" 15
~ t
« 2
.:c@
~< 16
LU
-'
-'
-.:E 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~,
.~~
;,]; 28
I~~ I
'\~
""
~'"
.' Plaintiff Amanda White ("Plaintiff") alleges claims against Defendants Flemmy Productions, LLC ("Flemmy") and Casey Affleck ("Affleck" and collectively with Flemmy, "Defendants") and DOES 1 through 10 as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. With this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages

relating to Affleck's repeated and willful acts of sexual harassment and retaliation, as well as numerous other violations of Government Code section 12940 et seq. (the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"», constructive discharge, unjust enrichment, failure to

prevent harassment, infliction of emotional distress and breach of a production agreement.

2. Plaintiff is a producer with years of experience working on feature films and other

motion picture projects. In December 2008, she entered into an agreement to serve as a Producer on

an untitled documentary project headed by Affleck and Flemmy (the "Project"). The Project focuses

on the efforts of actor Joaquin Phoenix ("Phoenix") to restyle his career as an entertainer and give up

acting to become established as a performer of rap music. On information and belief, the distribution rights were recently sold and the film received the title: "I'm Still Here: The Lost Year

of Joaquin Phoenix."

3. During the course of the Project, Plaintiff was subjected to repeated incidents of

offensive conduct because she is a woman. Plaintiff was forced to endure uninvited and unwelcome

sexual advances in the workplace. On one occasion, Affleck instructed a crew member to take off

his pants in order to show Plaintiff his penis, even after Plaintiff objected. Affleck repeatedly referred to women as "cows"; he discussed his sexual exploits and those of other celebrities that he allegedly witnessed; and asked Plaintiff, after learning her age, "Isn't it about time you get pregnant?" Affleck inappropriately suggested that Plaintiff and a male crew member have a baby together. Plaintiff was prevented from going to her bedroom, during shooting in Costa Rica, because Affleck and Phoenix locked themselves in her bedroom with two women. Affleck also attempted to

manipulate Plaintiff into staying in a hotel room with him, and when she resisted, he grabbed her in a hostile manner in an effort to intimidate her into complying.

COMPLAINT

69783.5

"

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q.,
-< 13
-<
vi
'"
oS 14
z!:(o
o ~ s 15
~ ~-
..: 2;::
co 0 s
I:~
~<::i 16
u.J ~
-<
-< :r:
-
~ f- 17
(;
::
z
~ 18
a-
a-
~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
e"
,.
t-~i
"',~ . 28
~"
.'
1"_
- ..
, "
11 •• r,
~~~ 4. Plaintiff objected to Defendants' harassing conduct directed towards her and other

women involved in the Project. In retaliation, Affleck refused to honor the terms of the production agreement, including an express agreement to pay Plaintiff her $50,000 producer's fee. And he failed to per her a "living wage" during the more than three months that she worked on the Project. At no time after Plaintiff's objections to the harassment have Defendants offered to pay the $50,00~ or the "living wage." To date, Plaintiff has not been paid for any of the work she performed in connection with the film, despite multiple emails from Defendants confirming that her work was "awesome" and that she was "fantastically thorough and creative and good tempered" throughout the time she worked on the Project.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Amanda White is an individual who resides in Los Angeles, California.

6. On information and belief, Defendant Casey Affleck is an individual who resides in

the County of Los Angeles in the State of California.

7. On information and belief, Defendant Flemmy Productions, LLC is a California

limited liability company with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.

8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued in this

Complaint as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by those fictitious

names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when

ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously

named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint, and

alleges that Plaintiff's injuries, as alleged in this Complaint, were caused by defendants' conduct.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times relevant to this action, each of the

defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, were acting as the agent, servant, employee, partner, shareholder, officer, director or joint venturer of each of the other defendants, and in doing the acts

herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency, permission, corporate status

or employment

2

COMPLAINT

69783.5

r-

'.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
l'>-
-' 13
....
v)
'"
lJ.< ;. 14
OJ
Z t;( 0
o ~ '"
" ~ s 15
<: ~;::
~ 0:;
1:'"
O::<:;i 16
w -c
.... ....
....,
-' i:
-
~ I- 17
0
5'
:£ 18
,.
<
'"
e-
!::
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
i!:'
.~ t
;}; 28
1,.:,
,
..
~!,
e>~ "

-----------------------------------

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. The Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Los Angeles is the

proper jurisdiction and venue for this action because a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to

Defendant's liability occurred in the County of Los Angeles.

11. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies. On or about July 16, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against

Defendants in regard to the incidents of unlawful discriminationlharassment, retaliation and

constructive discharge alleged in this Complaint. A copy of the right to sue letter issued by the DFEH is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND THE PRODUCER AGREEMENT

12. In December 2008, Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a producer on the Project.

The Project is a documentary following actor Joaquin Phoenix over the course of a year and focusing

on Phoenix's stated ambition to give up acting and establish a new career as a performer of rap

mUSiC,

13. At the time she was hired, Plaintiff and Affleck had known each other for

approximately 10 years and had worked on projects together in the past. Affleck was the Director and a Producer of the Project. Affleck told Plaintiff that he needed help producing the Project and asked her if she could start work right away.

14. On or about December 21, 2008, the parties entered into an oral producer agreement.

Under the terms of the producer agreement, Affleck agreed to pay Plaintiff a producer's fee of

$50,000 due and payable once the Project was sold to a distributer. On behalf of Flemmy, Affleck

also agreed that Plaintiff would receive a producer credit on the film.

15. In exchange for the agreed compensation and other terms, Plaintiff agreed to produce

several key scenes for the Project (in Miami and Las Vegas) and source stock footage of Miami, Los Angeles and New York so that it could easily be obtained for use in post-production. Plaintiff agreed to the limited producer's fee of$50,000 because she understood the scope of her duties as Producer would be relatively narrow.

COMPLAINT

69783.5

...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-9
10
11
12
""
....l
....l 13
v>
V)
~ S: 14
OJ
z~o
o~o
~:::s 15
-e 2 ~
~ @~.
~<:j 16
..... ~
....l
-' "
~ r- 17
<:;
:>
z
~ 18
a-
;
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
j:i:: ~
'"~ ;'
, 28
I .•
~,:,
tb,;l
, ' .
.. '.
f~l 16. In reliance upon the agreed terms of the producer agreement, Plaintiff cleared her

schedule to begin work on the Project. Plaintiff understood that the parties' producer agreement would be reduced to writing, but that she was needed on the Project immediately.

THE EARLY PHASES OF PRODUCTION

17. Plaintiff began working on the Project within days of agreeing to the terms of the

producer agreement with Affleck. Plaintiff produced a key shoot involving a well-known celebrity

and rap artist that occurred on December 29,2008 in Miami, Florida.

18. In January 2009, Plaintiff was asked to renegotiate an agreement with the Director of

Photography, Magdalena Gorka ("Gorka"), who had previously left the Project. Affleck told

Plaintiff that he wanted to rehire Gorka. The original agreement between Defendants and Gorka had been negotiated by a producer who left the Project before Plaintiff came on as Producer. Plaintiff

contacted Gorka's agent and renegotiated the terms of her compensation.

19. On information and belief, Gorka had been subjected to uninvited sexual harassment

during her work on the Project, and she resigned as a direct result of the sexual harassment she had

been forced to endure. Indeed, Affleck later admitted to Plaintiff that he had climbed into bed with

Gorka while she was sleeping when they were on location in New York. Gorka agreed to resume work on the Project because Gorka believed that Plaintiffs involvement as Producer would result in

a safer work environment.

20. It soon became apparent that Plaintiffs role as Producer would be much broader than

first suggested by Affleck when they reached an agreement regarding Plaintiffs compensation. Within weeks of joining the Project, Plaintiff was left to produce whole scenes without Affleck. In

January 2009, Plaintiff produced a scene involving Phoenix at Trinity Baptist Church in Los Angeles. Affleck did not appear for the shoot or give Plaintiff advance notice of his absence.

21. After the Trinity shoot, Plaintiff met with the attorneys working on the Project, David

Weber ("Weber") and AJ Brandenstein ("Brandenstein"). Weber and Brandenstein told Plaintiff that she would be the "adult" on the production. During the meeting, they discussed procedures for obtaining clearances for individuals involving in scenes for the Project, the terms of release forms, crew deal memoranda and other key aspects of production.

4

COMPLAINT

69783.5

'.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~ I I
e
0-
:s
~ 12
~
e, ~
_, u
_, ~ 13
V'l tl
~ ~ ~ 14
Clj.9
Z'<o
o ~"
,.. -= 15
~w_
-:( 2:::
~ 0 5
I:~
r:;t;<:j 16
~ ~
_,
_, i
~ f- 17
i5
~
z
~ 18
'"
'"
!?:.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~"
,.
,.~ :
, 28
.~ .'
~"
.'
(,.:,
\.
~!.
~;, '.

69783.5

22. Plaintiff learned that a previous producer on the Project had not performed in

accordance with Defendants' expectations and had been terminated from the Project. Plaintiff was expected to fix many of the problems that were caused by the previous producer's mistakes. This greatly increased the scope of the work Plaintiff would need to perform as Producer, because she had not been involved in aspects of the early production and was not given full documentation regarding

the work performed by the previous producer.

23. At the end of the meeting, Weber raised the issue of Plaintiffs producer agreement.

Weber mentioned that the parties would need to execute a written agreement. Plaintiff told Weber

that she had discussed payment terms with Affleck but that the scope of the work had changed since

their initial conversation in December 2008. Plaintiff left the meeting expecting to receive a written

producer agreement that was more consistent with the expanded scope of her duties as Producer.

THE LAS VEGAS SHOOTS

24. The. production was scheduled to resume with several scenes in Las Vegas, Nevada.

25. One afternoon, Plaintiff produced a shoot at the Palazzo Hotel where Phoenix performed a set as a rap artist. Following the set, Affleck told Plaintiff that he and Phoenix wanted

to shoot another sequence in their hotel suite that evening. Several prostitutes, including male

transvestites, were present for the evening shoot. Plaintiff was not aware of what Affleck planned

for that shoot.

26. Plaintiff, Gorka and the rest of the nearly all-male crew went to Affleck's and

Phoenix's hotel suite. Aside from the crew, there were approximately 35 people at the hotel suite including the prostitutes.

27. Plaintiff is informed and believes that none of the conduct that occurred in the hotel

suite is in the version of the film that will be released to the public. Plaintiff believes that Affleck orchestrated the shoot in the hotel suite for his personal gratification and unfairly subjected Plaintiff and Gorka to the conduct involving the prostitutes for reasons having nothing to do with the purpose

of the Project.

28. At one point, one of the male crew members commented inappropriately that Gorka

should have "played the part" of the transvestite prostitutes.

5

COMPLAINT

"

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(::...
...J
...J 13
~
V'l
LJ.J " 14
OJ
Z':<o
o~o
>-0 15
"'W~O
<2~$
co 0 ::; ~
t: Ion M
c:c.<~t::: 16
LJ.J .:-
.....l r-:::
~ '"
...J ~_
:r: ..
~ f- ;;: 17
~ f-
a
::
z
~ 18
g::
~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
lI'
"- .. ~
,
.. 28
t"
(,;.
, e ,
~,.
t;, 29. After the shoot in Las Vegas, Plaintiffwrote to Affleck regarding the events in the

hotel suite. Plaintiff asked Affleck to provide her with advance notice for shoots that would involve unusual behavior. Plaintiff also told Affleck that it was unfair to subject Gorka to offensive shooting

sequences without appropriate notice.

THE NEW YORK AND COSTA RICA SHOOTS

30. Plaintiff continued to work on the Project even though Defendants failed to present

the written producer agreement that was discussed between in January 2009. Plaintiff had invested

significant time in the Project and was unable to obtain other income because of her commitments to

the film. Based on her conversations with Affleck and his representatives and attorneys, Plaintiff expected to obtain a "living wage" during production and a producer's fee of at least $50,000, which Affleck agreed to by email-- a portion of the producer's fee was to be paid during production and the remainder to be paid after the film was picked up by a distributor. Plaintiff continued to work on the Project in reliance upon the agreed compensation terms with Defendants.

31. Plaintiff was integral to the production of several shoots in New York, including an

appearance by Phoenix on Late Night with David Letterman. Over a period of several weeks,

Phoenix praised her work as a Producer and referred to her as "unstoppable" many times over the

course of production. The shoots Plaintiff organized resulted in extensive press coverage for the Project and garnered the attention Affleck and Phoenix wanted for the film.

32. Affleck repeatedly confirmed that Plaintiff's work on the Project was not only

satisfactory, but outstanding. For example, he sent emails to Plaintiff stating that her work was

"awesome" and that she was "fantastically thorough and creative and good tempered" throughout the time she worked on the Project.

33. On or about March 12,2009, Plaintiff, Affleck, Phoenix and other crew members

traveled on a private plane from Miami, Florida to Costa Rica. Antony Langdon ("Langdon") was also present on the flight to Costa Rica. Langdon was a good friend of Affleck's and Phoenix's who was heavily involved in the Project and served as a Camera Assistant.

34. During the flight, Affleck asked Plaintiff is she wanted to see Langdon's penis.

Plaintiff replied "no." Affleck then told Langdon to drop his pants and Langdon did, exposing his 6

COMPLAINT

69783.5

"

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e,
....l 13
....l
v>
V)
..., ~ 14
OJ
z '<0
o ~ 0
" 1: S! 15
< ~:::
~ 0:;
1:""
"<:i 16
..., ~
....l
....l i'
-
~ I- 17
2;
::;
a
'> 18
-c
'"
.,.
:c:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~ .. , 27
, .
. ~~
, ,
t'; 28
,.
~,
, +.
t-<.
e;! "

genitals to Plaintiff. This was not part of the Project, and, on information and belief, this will not be

shown in the film that is released to the public,

35. During the course of production, Langdon also made repeated sexual advances

towards Gorka in the presence of Plaintiff, Affleck and Phoenix. Gorka was harassed by Langdon on an almost daily basis. Langdon routinely referred to the size of his penis; asked Gorka out on dates; and discussed sexually explicit conduct. These discussions occurred in the presence of Plaintiff and other crew members. Although Langdon's advances were unsolicited and Gorka complained about the work environment, she was forced to continue working directly with Langdon.

36. Affleck was often present during Gorka's encounters with Langdon. Affleck, as the

Director/Producer of the Project, made no attempt to curtail Langdon's harassing conduct. Instead, Affleck exacerbated the harassment. Affleck frequently asked Gorka when she was going to sleep with Langdon, and made similar comments to Plaintiff about Gorka and Langdon.

37. Despite the unwelcome and offensive nature of Langdon's conduct, Affleck refused

to interve~e or counsel Langdon to cease harassing Gorka. Affleck appeared to enjoy the fact that Langdon's behavior made Gorka and Plaintiff feel uncomfortable. Affleck's failure to intervene or discipline Langdon created an environment where the crew felt it was appropriate to engage in

offensive and derogatory conversations about women in Plaintiffs presence.

38. In Costa Rica, Affleck continued his abusive tactics towards Plaintiff. As the only

women on the shoot in Costa Rica, Plaintiff and Gorka shared a bedroom at the production team's

living quarters. One evening, Affleck, Phoenix, Gorka and Plaintiff went to dinner with other crew.

members and Phoenix's father at a restaurant several miles from the house where the crew was

staying.

39. After dinner, Gorka and Plaintiff returned home to learn that Phoenix and Affleck had

locked themselves in Plaintiffs bedroom with two women. They were told by a third individual as well as one of the crew members that Affleck and Phoenix were engaging in sexual activity in their

bedroom. Although Affleck had his own room, he chose to invade Plaintiffs privacy and violate her

personal space. This was all a part of Affleck's campaign of abuse and harassment.

COMPLAINT

69783.5

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
c,
...J 13
...J
....;
'"
UJ ~ 14
OJ
z !<
o ~ 15
" ::
« 2
~o
I:
"< 16
""'
...J
.....
- 17
:E
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
t;~
,.;~:
-, 28
t';
t.;,
,
"
10.0,
e;, "

69783,5

THE AFTERMATH OF THE COSTA RICA TRIP

40. After the Costa Rica trip, Affleck called Plaintiff and Gorka to a meeting at his house

in Los Angeles, During the meeting, Affleck berated Plaintiff and Gorka for their performance in Costa Rica.

41. Plaintiff objected to Affleck's personal attacks and said that she would not stand for

any further acts of abuse and disrespect. Affleck was aware that Plaintiff was offended by his conduct on the plane and in the house where the production crew stayed in Costa Rica. Affleck grew livid with Plaintiff when she refused to succumb to his intimidation tactics,

42, Affleck was violent in his expressions and unrelenting in his attacks on both Plaintiff

and Gorka.

43. Subsequently, Plaintiff met with Affleck and Phoenix to discuss the remaining

aspects of production, including the film budget. Affleck and Phoenix reaffirmed Affleck's agreement to give Plaintiff a producer credit for the Project (shared with Affleck), Plaintiff reiterated that her producer's fee was $50,000 and neither Affleck nor Phoenix disavowed their agreement to the producer's fee.

44, Plaintiff continued to work on the Project and began planning a shoot in San

Francisco, California. Plaintiff traveled to San Francisco and produced a shoot that took most of the day, As evening approached, Affleck said that he wanted to shoot an open mic performance that evening. Affleck told Plaintiff he wanted her to stay for the night even though Plaintiff did not have

her own hotel room or clothing for the next day.

45, When Plaintiff told Affleck that she needed to return to Los Angeles that evening

because of other commitments, Affleck pressured Plaintiff to stay, Plaintiff began to feel very uncomfortable with the situation and did not want to share a hotel room with Affleck that night. Plaintiff remembered the unwelcome sexual advances Affleck had made toward Gorka and was

afraid that she would be subjected to similar harassment ifshe stayed in Affleck's hotel room. When

Plaintiff told Affleck that she needed to go back to Los Angeles, Affleck became hostile and aggressive. He violently grabbed Plaintiffs arm in an effort to intimidate her into staying, Plaintiff

refused.

8

COMPLAINT

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"-
....l
....l 13
vl
'"
w);; 14
Qj
z ~
o ~
~ 1; 15
-e ~
c:Q@
~< 16
UJ
....l
....I
- 17
~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~;!
"' .. ~
;J; 28
w'
' ..
~"
~;I 46. As Plaintiff left to fly back to Los Angeles, Affleck continued his abusive conduct by

sending her abusive text messages and calling her profane names for refusing to stay with him.

47. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff informed Affleck that she would not continue to work on

the Project without a written agreement concerning her compensation. She was also deeply

distraught by the chronic harassment and otherwise improper .conduct that she endured in connection

with the Project. On or about April 1, 2009, Plaintiff stopped working on the Project.

48. During this time, Plaintiff was assured repeatedly by Weber and others that

Defendants were negotiating in good faith regarding Plaintiffs compensation for her work on the Project. Plaintiff refrained from taking legal action during the period of the settlement negotiations, relying on Defendants' repeated assurances that she would be compensated through settlement.

49. In September 2009, the tenor of the negotiations changed. Weber, who had once

praised Plaintiff for her professionalism and welcomed her involvement in the Project, began to paint Plaintiff in a negative light. After weeks of relying on Defendants' representations that they were negotiating in good faith, Plaintiff realized that Defendants would not honor the terms of the

producer's agreement.

50. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Affleck refused to compensate Plainti ff as

agreed because she objected to his harassing and abusive conduct, and because she refused to share his hotel room during the shoot in San Francisco. Affleck encouraged and participated in the

harassment of Plaintiff and Gorka for his own twisted gratification; indeed, on information and

belief, virtually none of the acts complained of herein are contained in the film that will be shown to

the public.

51. Plaintiff only endured the harassment as long as she did because she needed the work.

Plaintiff has not received any of the compensation due to her from Defendants. Plaintiff has suffered

and continues to suffer from humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress as a direct result of

the harassment and abuse she endured during production. Plaintiff has experienced anxiety, loss of sleep and aggravation of a pre-existing health condition because of Defendants' offensive and humiliating treatment, including their retaliation against her when she objected to the hostile work

environment.

COMPLAINT

69783.5

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e,
..J
..J 13
vl
til
..., ~ 14
OJ
z!(o
o ~ 0
c::: ~ g 15
< 2:::
co 0 0;
t:~
r;t.<;::i 16
LLJ ~
..J
..J i:
~ I- 17
0
::;
2
~ 18
'"
e-
~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
e:;,
,.~ ','
e
I::; 28
<'I~ 1
,
"
~"
f'
,. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Sexual Harassment - Violation of Government Code § 12940)

(Against all Defendants)

52. Plaintiff hereby repeats, alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing

and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint as though these paragraphs were set forth in full herein.

53. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Government

Code section 12940 et seq.) it is an unlawful employment practice for an employee or independent

contractor to be subjected to harassment based on sex or gender that is sufficiently pervasive or

severe to alter the terms and conditions of her employment. Cal. Govt. Code, § 12940, subds. (a)

and G).

54. Plaintiff is a woman and was subjected to the incidents alleged herein above while

she was performing services as a Producer pursuant to a contract with Defendants.

55. Defendants are employers within the meaning of FEHA.

56. As described in detail above, Affleck and other employees of Defendants engaged in

a pattern and practice of unlawful sexual harassment of Plaintiff and other women employed by Defendants. The sexually harassing conduct included, but was not limited to, the following:

(A) Activities involving transvestite prostitutes for purposes unrelated to the

Project;

(B) Invasion of Plaintiffs privacy by virtue of Affleck engaging in sexual

activity with others in Plaintiffs bedroom and on her bed;

(C) Numerous uninvited and unwelcomed sexual advances by Affleck and

other male crew members as to Plaintiff and other female crew members,

including an incident in which Affleck encouraged a male crew member to expose his penis to Plaintiff, over Plaintiffs objections;

(D) A psychologically and physically coercive attempt by Affleck to require

Plaintiff to stay overnight in a hotel room with him;

(E) Frequent uninvited and unwelcomed sexually explicit conversations in

Plaintiffs presence, including, but not limited to, conversations in which 10

COMPLAINT

69783.5

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e,
...; 13
...;
vi"
Vl
.... ~ 14
OJ
Z'<o
o~o
>-0 15
c:t: ~-
<~~
~ 0:;
I:~
o::<~ 16
.... ~
...; ...,
...; l:
::E f- 17
i5
::;
z
~ 18
'"
~
~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
f'
.'
~~:'
;:; 28
c'
0"
'"
~""
e;! Affleck boasted about sexual activity and encouraged a male Crew

member to discuss the size of his penis;

(F) Conversations between Plaintiff and Affleck in which Affleck badgered

Plaintiff about her age and inquired: "Isn't it about time that you got

pregnant?"

(0) Suggestions that Plaintiff have a baby with one of the male crew members

(H) Routinely referring to women as "cows";

(I) Harassment of Gorka by Langdon, on an almost daily basis and in the

presence of Plaintiff; Affleck, who refused to intervene, failed to instruct Langdon to cease the harassment or take any steps to remedy the abusive

conduct.

57. The above-described conduct created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was subjected to the offensive, intimidating and abusive conduct because she is a woman.

Plaintiff did not consent to such conduct and found it unwelcome and offensive.

58. At various times during her work on the Project, Plaintiff told Affleck and others that

\

she objected to the sexually offensive and derogatory behavior of Affleck and others involved in the

production. Defendants knew or should have known that the harassing conduct was not welcome by Plaintiffs. Defendants refused to cease the offensive conduct or to ensure that Plaintiff was not

subjected to a hostile work environment or to take any corrective action.

59. The sexually harassing conduct was sufficiently pervasive and severe as to alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment and to create an intimidating, hostile, offensive and

abusive workplace environment.

60. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, their agents

and/or employees, Plaintiff was harmed. Defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous and has caused Plaintiff injury, damage, loss and harm including loss of income, medical expenses, humiliation, embarrassment, severe mental and emotional distress and discomfort based on the

sexual harassment experienced, the precise amount to be determined at trial.

11

COMPLAINT

69783.5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~
....l
....l 13
.....;
Vl
""')I: 14
OJ
Zt(o
o~o
p!_t:!: 15
< ~ ~
I:Q 0 5
~ ~
p!_ -< ;;i 16
..... ~
....l '"
....l i
-
~ f- 17
:5
~
z
~ 18
g:
2::
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~"
~ .
.... :
;:;; 28
~;Jl
.,
.'.
ju,
~: 61. The conduct described herein was malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive, and done

with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294 in an amount to be determined at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation - Violation of Government Code § 12945) (Against Defendant Flernrny)

62. Plaintiff hereby repeats, alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing

and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint as though these paragraphs were set forth in full herein.

63. Government Code: section 12945 makes it unlawful for "any employer or person" to

retaliate against any employee or independent contractor who has opposed a discriminatory practice, including sexual harassment.

64. Plaintiff reasonably believes, and herein alleges, that she was subjected to hostile and

abusive conduct because she is a woman.

65. In or around March 2009, Plaintiff objected to sexually offensive and degrading

conduct in the context of the trip to Costa Rica described herein.

66. In or around March 2009, Plaintiff told Affleck and Phoenix that she objected to the

degrading and disrespectful conduct to which she was subjected during the course of production.

67. During the San Francisco trip, Plaintiff refused Affleck's attempts to force her to

share his hotel room for the evening and objected to his refusal to respect her wishes.

68. After Plaintiff objected to the outrageous and degrading conduct described above, and

voiced her objection to the other sexually offensive behavior set forth herein, Plaintiff was subjected

to adverse employment actions, including further harassment and refusal to honor the production

agreement and pay Plaintiff the $50,000 fee previously agreed to by Affleck. At no time after Plaintiff's objections to the harassment have Defendants offered to pay the $50,000 fee and at no time have provided compensation. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she

was subjected to such adverse employment actions in retaliation for her having opposed practices

she reasonably believes were discriminatory toward women.

12

COMPLAINT

69783.5

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
e, 0
..J 0
..J ;:; 13
vi' ~
Vl 0
""' " M 14
OJ
z~o~
o~o 15
~~~
« :1 ~
~ 0;;
~~
a;:<;j 16
""' -e
..l ...
~
::: l:
::E fo- 17
i5
~
:>
z
Z 18
'"
e-
~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~" .
• ~i
;~; 28
'-!'
'._
r!'
~"
". 69. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants ratified

the retaliation against Plaintiff by refusing and failing to intervene and stop the retaliation against

her.

70. As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer humiliation, anxiety, severe emotional distress, worry, fear, and injury to her reputation, in

and amount according to proof at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to PreventlRemedyflnvestigate Harassment) (Against Defendant Flemmy)

71. Plaintiff hereby repeats, alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing'

and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint as though these paragraphs were set forth in full herein.

72. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that in violation of Government

Code section 12940, subdivisions G) and (k), Flemmy and/or its agents/employees failed to take all

reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring, failed to take all reasonable steps

necessary to prevent retaliation from occurring, and failed to remedy such harassment and

retaliation.

73. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that all actions of Defendants,

their employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved

by the officers and managing agents of Flemmy.

74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to prevent the sexual

harassment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, anxiety, severe

emotional distress, worry, fear, and injury to her reputation, in an amount according to proof at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy)

(Against all Defendants)

75. Plaintiff hereby repeats, alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing

and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint as though these paragraphs were set forth in full herein.

COMPLAINT

69783.5

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e,
....I
....I 13
...;
Vl
"" ~ 14
Qj
z >;: 0
0-0
c:::1:~o 15
<2;:;;;
co 0 :; ..,.
t: VI M
~ <;;i t:i 16
~ ~ ~
....I --
I: .•
~ f- ;: 17
_ f-
0
:;
z
;:: 18
<
o-.
.,..
e::
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~;!
~~ ~ 28
u ,
~,:'
(.,; '~
'"
~",
e,:, 76. Defendants intentionally created and encouraged sexual harassment in violation of

FEHA, resulting in an intimidating, hostile, offensive and abusive workplace environment.

77. Plaintiffs working conditions were so intolerable and aggravated at the time of the

resignation of Plaintiff that a reasonable employer would have realized that a reasonable person in

the position of Plaintiff would be compelled to resign.

78. Plaintiff was, in fact, compelled to resign her employment because Defendants' acts

of sexual harassment and failure to prevent sexual harassment, as well as retaliation in the form of

refusal to pay any agreed-to compensation, created an intolerable working environment.

79. A reasonable person under the same circumstances, faced with the same or similar

conduct, would have felt compelled to resign.

80. The fundamental rights embodied by FEHA inure to the benefit of the public, not just

the private interests of the employer and employee, because all individuals within the State of

California are afforded these rights.

81. Consequently, Defendants' constructive discharge of Plaintiff as a result of their

violations of FEHA is a violation of California public policy.

82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' constructive discharge, Plaintiff has

suffered damages, the precise amount to be proven at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Oral Contract) (Against all Defendants)

83. Plaintiff hereby repeats, alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing

and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint as though these paragraphs were set forth in full herein.

84. 'On or about December 21,2008, Affleck orally agreed to pay Plaintiff her producer's

fee, once the Project was sold to a distributor. He also agreed to give her a producer's credit on the

film.

85. In consideration of Plaintiffs work as a Producer on the Project, Plaintiff and

Defendants agreed that Plaintiff would be given a producer credit on the Project and paid a fee of

$50,000 for her work.

14

COMPLAINT

69783.5

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q..
...J 13
...J
vi'
'"
<J.j >: 14
OJ
Z :;:
0- 15
,x t:
<: ~
i:Og
,x< 16
<J.j
...J
..J
~ 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~,
.. ;~
~~: 28
~:
~ .•.
e;' 86. Subsequent to the making of these oral agreements, Plaintiff performed all

obligations, conditions and covenants required of her by the agreements.

87. Upon information and belief, the Project was sold to a distributor, Magnolia Pictures,

in July 2010.

88. Defendants failed to comply with their obligations under the oral agreement and

breached the agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff the agreed-to $50,000 fee.

89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has suffered

damages of at least $50,000, the precise amount to be proven at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment) (Against all Defendants)

90. Plaintiff hereby repeats, alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing

and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint as though these paragraphs were set forth in full herein.

91. As an alternative theory of recovery, Plaintiff seeks damages on an equitable claim of

quasi-contact and unjust enrichment.

92. Defendants have benefitted substantially from Plaintiffs services as a producer on the

Project and unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiff.

93. Plaintiff is entitled to receive the fair value of the services she provided to Defendants

in an amount not less than $50,000, the precise amount to be proven at trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

(Against all Defendants)

94. Plaintiff hereby repeats, alleges, and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing

and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint as though these paragraphs were set forth in full herein.

95. The conduct of Defendants was outrageous, intentional, malicious, and done with

reckless disregard for the fact that such unlawful, abusive conduct would certainly cause Plaintiff to

suffer severe emotional distress.

COMPLAINT

69783.5

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q..
-.J
-.J 13
vi
'"
IJ,.l " 14
OJ
z ':;:
0::: 15
,,~
< 2
1:00
I=:
,,< 16
IJ,.l
-.J
-.J
:::E 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~,
.~~
;::;; 28
(;,
"
.'.
~.,
e;, 96. The unlawful and abusive comments and the intentional and cruel acts of sexual

harassment were so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all bounds usually tolerated in a civilized

society.

97. In engaging in the conduct alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, intended to

cause or possessed a reckless disregard for the probability of causing, severe emotional distress to

Plaintiff.

98. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned outrageous and malicious

acts, Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, emotional and physical distress, including an

exacerbation of a pre-existing medical condition, anxiety, stress, and a loss of sleep, resulting in

damages to be proven at trial.

99. The conduct described herein was malicious, fraudulent, and/or oppressive, and done

with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff s rights. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

I. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but believed to be in excess of $2 million;

2. Punitive or exemplary damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

3. Attorney's fees, expenses and costs of suit pursuant to Government Code section

12965 and other applicable provisions of law;

4. Prejudgment interest as allowed by law; and

5. Such other and further reliefas the court may deem proper.

DATED: July 21, 2010

MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

BY~

Attorneys for Plaintiff Amanda White

1

COMPLAINT

69783.5

DEMAND FOR JURY
2 Plaintiff Amanda White hereby demands a jury trial.
3
4 DATED: July 21,2010 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
5
6 B~
By:
7
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Amanda White
9
10
~ 11
<J
0
~
::5
~ 12
e
~ ::0
<
..J U
..J ::i 13
V'l ti
~ ~ ~ 14
O.:i3
z '<
o~
0:: t 15
<~
,:00
~
0::< 16
....
..J
..J
-
:::E 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~~
~~
~;J; 28
~,
-, 17
"
~~t
e;' COMPLAINT
69783.5 5T ~ TE OF CALIFORNIA - STII TE AND CONSUMER SER.IIGENCY

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING 1055 WEST 7TH STREET, SUITE 1400, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 (213) 439·6770

www.dfeh.ca.qov

July 16, 2010

WHITE, AMANDA

933 NORTH HOBART BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90029

RE: E201 011 R5093-00

WHITE/FLEMMY PRODUCTIONS. LLC

Dear WHITE, AMANDA:

NOTICE OF CASE CLOSURE

This letter informs that the above-referenced complaint that was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective July 16, 2010 because an immediate right-to-sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint.

This letter is also the Right-To-Sue Notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action maybe brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter.

If a federal notice of Right-To-Sue is wanted, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) must be visited to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.

Notice of Case Closure e Page Two

DFEH does not retain case files beyond three years after a complaint is filed, unless the case is still open at the end of the three-year period.

Sincerely,

Tina Walker

District Administrator

cc: Case File

DAVID WEBER COUNSEL

SLOAN OFFER WEBER & DERN LLP 9601 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 500 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210

DFEH.200-43 (06/06)

EMPLOYMENT * * *" DFEH#

--------------------------_

***

COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

E201011 R5093·01

DFEH USE ONLY

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

YOUR NAME {indicate Mr. or Ms.} WHITE, AMANDA

TELEPHONE NUMBER {INCLUDE AREA CODE} (310)770·7871

ADDRESS

933 NORTH HOBART BLVD

CITY/STATE/ZIP

LOS ANGELES,CA,90029

COUNTY

LOS ANGELES

COUNTY CODE 037

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, PERSON, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, OR STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME:

NAME

AFFLECK, CASEY

TELEPHONE NUMBER [Include Area Code) (310)275-6135

ADDRESS

9229 W SUNSET BLVD, STE 414

DFEH USE ONLY

CITY /ST ATE/ZIP

LOS ANGELES, CA 90069

COUNTY

COUNTYCQDE

NO. OF EMPLOYEES/MEMBERS (if known)

1+

DATE MOST RECENT OR CONTINUING DISCRIMINA TlON TOOK PLACE {month,day, and year}

03/31/2009

01

RESPONDENT CODE

THE PARTICULARS ARE:

I allege that on about or before 03/31/2009, the following conduct occurred:

termination laid off demotion

_1L harassment

_ genetic characteristics testing

_1L constructive discharge [forced to quit] _ impermissible non·jotrrelated inquiry

_ denial of employment _ denial of promotion

denial of transfer

_ denial 01 accommodation

_ failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation _X_ retaliation

_ other (specify)

__ denial of family or medical leave _ denial of pregnancy leave

__ dsnlsal 01 equal pay

__ denial of righf to wear pants

_ denial of pregnancy accommodation

by A_FF_L_E_C~K~,~C_A_S_E_Y D_I_R_E~C_T~O~R~/~P~R~O~D~U~C~E~R~ _

Name of Person

because of:

_X_sex _age _religion

race/color

__ national origin/ancesUy mantal status

sexual orientation association

Job TiUe (supervisor/manager/personnel director/etc.)

__ disability (phySical Qr mental) __ medical condition (cancer or generic chractensuc

__ other (specify]

_ retaliation for engaging In protected aclivity or requesting a protected leave or accommodatlon

State of what you believe to be the reason(s) for discrimination

COMPLAINANT MS. WHITE EXPERIENCED EXTENSIVE AND EXTREME SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHILE WORKING ON A FILM PROJECT ORGANIZED BY HER EMPLOYER FLEMMY PRODUCTIONS, LLC ('FLEMMY') AND CASEY AFFLECK ('AFFLECK'). FLEMMY AND AFFLECK CREATED AND PROMOTED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF FEMALE EMPLOYEES WAS PERVASIVE, SO MUCH SO THAT IT EVENTUALLY BECAME THE NORM AMONG FILM CREW AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT.

I wish to pursue this matter in court. I hereby request that the Department of Fair Employment and Housing provide a right·to~sue. I understand that if I wanl a federal notice of right~to·sue, I must visit the U.S. Eq ual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of the DFEH 'Notice of Case Closure: or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory acl, whichever is earlier.

I have not been coerced into making this request, nor do I make it based on tear ot retaliation if I do not do so. I understand it is the Department of Fair Employment and Housing's policy to not process or reopen a complaint once the complaint has been closed on the basis of 'Complainant Elected Court Action.'

By $ubmlUlng this complaint lam declaring under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of CalifornIa that the foregoing Is true and correct of my own knowledge except as to matters stated on my Information and belief, and as to those matters 1 believe It to be true.

Dated 07/16/2010

At Los Angeles

OAT E FILED: 07/16/2010

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

~,

DFEH·300·030 (02/08)

D~PARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING c·

-,

~t: e,:,

"

,.

,.-~

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):

Louis R. Miller, State Bar No. 54141 Brian Procel, State Bar No, 218657 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067

TELEPHONE NO.: (310) 552-4400 FAX NO. (310) 552-8400

ATTORNEY FOR Name: Amanda White

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles STREET ADDRESS: 11 I North Hill Street

MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND ZIP CODE: Los Angeles 90012

BRANCH NAME: Stanle "Mosk Courthouse

CASE NAME: AMANDA WHITE v, CASEY AFFLECK, et al.

FOR COURT USE ONL Y

F I L E l}lFORNlA suP!R\9!-£ogfI8lkNGELEs

COur~ l ,

JUl 23 'Lan

Complex Case Designation o Counter 0 Joinder

Filed with first appearance by defendant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

C"X_J Unlimited C] Limited

(Amount (Amount

demanded demanded is

exceeds $25 000 $25000 or less

CASE NUMBER:

JUDGE: 9

DEPT:

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort Contract

[=J Auto (22) 0 Breach of contracUwarranty (06)

I I Uninsured motorist (46) 0 Rule 3.740 collections (09)

Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Injury/Property 0 Other collections (09)

DamagelWrongful Death) Tort I I Insurance coverage (18)

r~-I Asbestos (04) I 1 Other contract (37)

r ~.'_j Product liability (24) Real Property

i -'_J Medical malpractice (4S) I _I Eminent domain/Inverse

i __ . J Other PI/PDIVVD (23) condemnation (14)

Non-PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort CJ Wrongful eviction (33)

[~] Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Cl Other real property (26)

~~-~] Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer

[~-J Defamation (13) D Commercial (31)

CJ Fraud (16) [ 1 Residential (32)

[.=1 Intellectual property (19) 0 Drugs (38)

[~ Professional negligence (2S) Judicial Review

C] Other non-PI/PDIVVD tort (3S) 0 Asset forfeiture (OS)

Employment 0 Petition re: arbitration award (11)

iJ Wrongful termination (36) 0 Writ of mandate (02)

[£] Other employment (1S) D Other judicial review (39)

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3,403)

CJ AntitrustlTrade regulation (03) CJ Construction defect (10)

[ J Mass tort (40)

CJ Securities litigation (28) CJ Environmentalrroxic tort (30)

L.=l Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

D Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint D RICO (27)

D Other complaint (not specified above) (42)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition

D Partnership and corporate governance (21) D Other petition (not specified above) (43)

2. This case l __ J is I_x_! is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the

factQf.§ requiring exceptional judicial management:

a. L _J Large number of separately represented parties d. D Large number of witnesses

b. L _ -1 Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. 0 Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court

c. [~Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. D Substantial post judgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. [xJ monetary b. 0 nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [XJ punitive

4. Number of causes of action (specify): Eight

5. This case I I is Lx] is not a class action suit.

6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use torm CM-015.)

Date: July 23, 2010 ....

Brian Procel ~"-__:~:;d'!i:7;~~=;:;:;-;::;-;;-;:-::;===;-;;-;:;=----

ITYPE OR PRINT NAME)

NOTICE

• Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed 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 rule.

• I~,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 qther 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.

,;, P. 01 of 2

Form Adopted for Mandalory Use Ju<l~al Council of California CM-Ot 0 IRev. July 1. 20071

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Legal Cal. Rules of Court. rules 2.30, .3220 3400-3403.3740.

So~1s1G~- Cal. StandardORI rGrN,}\L

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET

CM-010

To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. 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. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates 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 initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the 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 interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property. or (5) a prejudgment writ 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 files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be 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. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that

the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES

Auto Tort

Auto (22)-Personallnjury/Property DamageMirongful Death

Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto)

Other PllPDfWD (Personallnjuryl Property DamagefWrongful Death) Tort

Asbestos (04)

Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death

Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (4S)

Medical MalpracticePhysicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice

Other PItPDIWD (23)

Premises liability (e.g., slip and fall)

Intentional Bodily Injury/PDIWD (e.g., assault, vandalism) lntentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Other PIIPDMlD Non-PIIPDfWD (Other) Tort

Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07)

Civil Rights (e.q., discrimination. false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel)

(13) Fraud (16)

Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (2S)

Legal Malpractice

Other Professional Malpractice

!"', (not medical or legal)

Otlier Non·PIIPDIWD Tort (3S) Emplj:1yment

Whlngful Termination (36) Oth~r Employment (1S)

Contract

Breach of ContracUWarranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease

Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) ContracUWarranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract!

Warranty

Other Breach of ContracUWarranty

Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounts) (09)

Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections

Case

Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18)

Auto Subrogation

Other Coverage

Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute

Real Property

Eminent Domainllnverse Condem nation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33)

Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure

Quiet Title

Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure)

Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32)

Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential)

Judicial Review

Asset Forfeiture (OS)

Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02)

Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Malter

Writ-Other Limited Court Case Review

Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rutes of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) AntitrustfTrade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10)

Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmentalrroxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims

(arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County)

Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations)

Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case

Miscellaneous Civit Complaint

RICO (27)

Other Complaint (not specified above) (42)

Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non-

harassment) Mechanics Lien

Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-torVnon-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate

Governa n ce (21)

Other Petition (not specified above) (43)

Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult

Abuse Election Contest

Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief from Late

Claim

Other Civil Petition

CM.{)1(llRev. July 1. 20071

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

.~

SHORT TITLE: AMANDA WHITE v. CASEY AFFLECK, et al.

CASE NUMBER

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCA (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)

This form is required pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.0 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case:

JURY TRIAL? [x] YES ClASS ACTION? CI YES LIMITED CASE? 0 YES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL II HOURSI r-S-] DAYS

Item II. Select the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps -If you checked "limited Case", skip to Item III, Pg. 4):

Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet Form, find the main civil case cover sheet heading for your case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.

Step 2: Check one Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case. Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have checked. For any exception to the court location, see Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.0.

Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (See Column C below)

1. Class Actions must be filed in the County Courthouse, Central District. 6. Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.

2. May be filed in Central (Other county, or no Bodily InjurylProperty Damage). 7. Location where petitioner resides.

3. Location where cause of action arose. 8. Location wherein defendanVrespondent functions wholly.

4. Location where bodily injury, death or damage occurred. 9. Location where one or more of the parties res·lde.

5. Location where performance required or defendant resides. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner Office.

Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item III; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration.

1:: o t-

o 'S <C

A B C
Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons-
Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above
Auto (22) D A7100 Motor Vehicle - PersonallnjuryfProperty DamageMirongful Death 1.,2.,4.
Uninsured Motorist (46) .-----) A7110 Personal InjuryfProperty DamageMirongful Death - Uninsured Motorist 1.,2.,4.
Asbestos (04) C] A6070 Asbestos Property Damage 2.
C:J A7221 Asbestos - PersonallnjurylVlfrongful Death 2.
Product Liability (24) D A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) 1.,2.,3.,4.,8.
Medical Malpractice D A72tO Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons t., 2., 4.
(45) D A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice 1.,2.,4.
Other [~J A7250 Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) 1.,2.,4.
Personal Injury [':J A7230 Intentional Bodily InjuryfProperty DamagelVlfrongful Death (e.g.,
Property Damage assault, vandalism, etc.) 1 .. 2.,4.
Wrongful Death
(23) [~:] A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 1 .. 2.,3.
D A7220 Other Personallnjury/Property DamagelVlfrongful Death 1.,2.,4.
Business Tort (07) D A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraudfbreach of contract) 1 .• 2 .. 3.
Civil Rights (OB) D A6005 Civil RightsfOiscrimination 1.,2.,3.
Defamation (13) D A6010 Defamation (slanderflibel) 1.,2.,3.
Fraud (16) 1=--=-.1 A6013 Fraud (no contract) 1.,2.,3. > ... ... .. .._ 0

~I-

0':;

......

c.. 10

- W

~O

::1_ .~ :::l

'=0, - c:

~ 0

o ...

Ul~ ~Q.;

c.. 0'1

... 10

W E .!::. ctI

00

... > ... ... 0

~Io...c: o ... ... C'J 0.. Q.I

>.0

.. -

:J ::J

,- ....

~ Cl - c is 0

c ...

£~

.. Q.I II) Cl 0.. C'J

c E

o II,) 20

ORIGINAL

(_;,

uACIV 109 (Rev. 01/07) t!A:sc Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LAse, rule 2.0 Page 1 of 4 LA-4B1

C

QI

E >. o a E

w

SHORT TITLE: AMANDA WHITE v. CASEY AFFLECK, et al. I CASE NUMBER
A B C
Civil Case Cover Type of Action Applicable Reasons
Sheet Category No. (Check only one) - See Step 3 Above
Professional D A6017 Legal Malpractice 1.,2.,3.
Negligence [_~
(25) A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) 1., 2.,3.
Other (35) D A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort 2., 3.
Wrongful Termination D A6037 Wrongful Termination 1.,2.,3.
(36)
Other Employment ll] A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case 1.@3.
(15) D A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals 10.
Brea en of Contract! D A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not Unlawful Detainer or wrongful
eviction) 2.,5.
Warranty D A6008 ContractlWarranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) 2.,5.
(06) 0
(not insu ra nee) A6019 Negligent Breach of ContractlWarranty (no fraud) 1.,2.,5.
0 A6028 Other Breach of ContractlWarranty (not fraud or negligence) 1.,2.,5.
Collections CJ A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 2.,5.,6.
(09) L=:J A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case 2.,5.
Insurance Coverage 0 A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1.,2.,5.,8.
(18)
Other Contract D A6009 Contractual Fraud 1.,2.,3.,5.
(37) D A6031 Tortious Interference 1.,2.,3.,5.
CI A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence) 1.,2.,3., B.
Eminent
Domain/Inverse I:"] A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Number of parcels ___ 2.
Condemnation (14)
Wrongful Eviction Cl A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 2.,6.
(33)
D A601B Mortgage Foreclosure 2.,6.
Other Real Property CJ
(26) A6032 Quiet Title 2 .. 6.
0 A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) 2.,6.
Unlawful Detainer - D
Commercial (31) A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 2.,6.
Unlawful Detainer-
Residential (32) 0 A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 2.,6.
Unlawful Detainer- 0
Drugs (38) A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs 2.,6.
Asset Forfeiture (05) r--] A610B Asset Forfeiture Case 2.,6.
Petition re Arbitration (11) D A6115 Petition to Compel/ConfirmNacate Arbitration 2.,5. u ~ c o u

~;:

LP,.ClV 109 (Rev. 01/07)

LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LAse, rule 2.0 Page 2 of 4

SHORTTITlE: AMANDA WHITE v. CASEY AFFLECK, et al.

CASE NUMBER

A B C
Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons -
Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above
L _ _] A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus 2 .. 8.
Writ of Mandate D A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2.
(02) D A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review 2.
Other Judicial Review D
(39) A6150 Other Writ / Judicial Review 2 .. 8.
Antitrust/Trade D A6003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation 1 .• 2.,8.
Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10) D A6007 Construction defect 1.,2.,3.
Claims Involving Mass D A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort 1.,2.,8.
Tort (40)
Securities Litigation (28) [:=J A6035 Securities Litigation Case 1.,2.,8.
Toxic Tort D A6036 Toxic TortlEnvironmental 1.,2.,3.,8.
Environmental (30)
Insurance Coverage 0 A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only) 1.,2.,5.,8.
Claims from Complex
Case (41)
D A6141 Sister State Judgment 2.,9.
Enforcement D A6160 Abstract of Judgment 2.,6.
of Judgment D A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations) 2.,9.
(20) [::J A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2.,8.
[---~I A6114 Petition/Certificate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2.,8.
~I
Ll A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case 2 .. 8.,9.
RICO (27) I I A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case 1.,2.,8.
0 A6030 Declaratory Relief Only 1.,2.,8.
Other Complaints D
(Not Specified Above) A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment) 2.,8.
D A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) 1.,2.,8.
(42) D A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) 1.,2.,8.
Partnership Corporation i-I A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case 2.,8.
Governance (21)
D A6121 Civil Harassment 2.,3.,9.
D A6123 Workplace Harassment 2.,3.,9.
Other Petitions 0
A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case 2.,3.,9.
(Not Specified Above) D
A6190 Election Contest 2,
(43) D Petition for Change of Name
A6110 2.,7.
[~J A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law 2.,3.,4.,8.
D A6100 Other Civil Petition 2.,9 .
..... .. Q)

13. E

8 5

>- '':;

= ~

(1J ._

c -

o ::::::;

'ilI

os:

o

ci:

......

c C QJ cv

E E

Q) 01 u'O ... :::l

,2...,

c: .... l1J 0

L{CIV 109 (Rev. 01/07) lASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LAse, rule 2.0 Page 3 of 4

,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHORT TITLE AMANDA WHITE v. CASEY AFFLECK, et al.

I CASE NUMBER

Item III. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in Item 11., Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected.

crrv.

Los Angeles

STATE:

CA

ZIP CODE:

90069

REASON: CHECK THE NUMBER UNDER COLUMN C WHICH APPLIES IN THIS CASE ADDRESS:

9229 W. Sunset Boulevard, Suite 414

01. [RJ2. 03.04. D5. D6. 1:=17. DB. 1=19. 010.

Item IV. Declaration of Assignment: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mask

courthouse in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court

(Code Civ. Proc., § 392 et seq., and LASC Local Rule 2.0, subds. (b), (c) and (d)).

Dated: July 23, 2010

Brian Procel

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 filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.

3. Civil Case Cover Sheet form CM-010.

4. Complete Addendum to Civil Case Cover Sheet form LACIV 109 (Rev 01/07), LASC Approved 03-04.

5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.

6. Signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, JC form FL-935, if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age, or if required by Court.

7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.

,

~~:

LACIV 109 (Rev. 01/07)

LASe Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LAse, rule 2.0 Page 4 of 4

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->