ne SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet ‘Sep-02-2015 10:29 am Case Number: CGC-15-547735 Filing Date: Sep-02-2015 10:22 Filed by: DENNIS TOYAMA Juke Box: 001 Image: 05059061 COMPLAINT DAVID HALEY VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL 001005059061 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. (aeSUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) nonce yo oerman (AVI8O AL DEMANDADO): Sea ornate YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANOO EL DEMANDANTE): David Haley Yoav Baa oan Th Sr ay wow *Yoshave 30 CALENDAR DAY® are aurmone an tga paper re ered on you of wlan reaponee a hie cour and havea copy savadon Pe pil A lettre et vl rc pede you, Your wien rapa at Be propa lage i you Warder heer Your ‘Sse Thove ny bo a cur at you ca Ue fr your angers. ou can fed was cout foe and mon mr a he Caria Cou, ‘Gra Bet ay Canta (re yor cert oa ray of courthouse earet you. Kyou crn ey he rg Re, ak acm tra sa Fog ha eraare en s You may e cme Gat Wa MN, PY roe ster wal requorrt, You ry wat clan atary ft oy. you gore krow an sir, you may wart can some werent. youre sw ara: au eco rr np tna ns nae no os Bega, Youn {has nrg roe a Coma Lapa "ae (nv innnapentona sa Cabtra Coss One Batty Cot (teocoute. sa pores oY sa neal outs our br secon NOTE: car fase waaory Ban waa oe nd [Sauer anyssmsert or ecvator ewar f9 10000 cree 6 Ge cas he cure Bon mus spa Datos ha cast al aie cao. {AveGl Leon deme 3 epee Sr 30s, csp carb coro xciche ay vert. Lee mnomaat @ “Tone 90 DIAS DE CALENOARIO onapute do quel onveuet ul luci y ppete lgeos pare praertar une rapes po eco one chy how qu be sages une copa a aaa. eeu we humach tice re canpan. 5 eapunat Por ears Sar Got ear \Srfotnts nga Coren & cose gow proceast Beas on crt. Bs peal qs haye st east (ue Uted PLACA LAM AP BSNL. ‘Fisdn orcenbur oso tomatroa Go sey née itemactn a Cara cA a Carton do Caos fo ste cag), 60 [SStamen ov yes dea condos oon cre gun uaa as crc. 00 punce pagar uct prostate core ‘uate norma co exon Ge page ge cutan Sino prearas by eget a pe, unde para ca por Reman cot fe ocr gor ev sutsn dere y bane otra charac “fey cos regulates ogo. Es rccmandas gus hue un abogedo hmedatonenie. 10 cone 2 wn abogude, puta Samar un serie Oo ‘eembn a ange. Bre punde pagar i sbageda oo posbie qu camo cot rege pare clare aariba loge ree 0 Fran emp e e Pne rer ae gpsohn yoo en eCana La Se, ‘meetup rg) Care de Ayuda Caves even astrta goo panndoes on aoraas con scat 26! ‘cage ements my net ae Sr ce eo Sr raseiaracsn co 10000 6 mas vbr nc eae in aunt na enoeatn Ge ecient ato 0 deco Gh Tae Gut 2a anos ous ers pu cane C08. Goonirey arecutn coe cone ea San Francisco Superior Court = 75-5477 35 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 CLERK OF THE COURT “The name, acres, a telephone numberof plant's toma, of plaid witout an atomey,| Bice heel attonas co obkre outscpeso cl maaan ot amon aero Bre soon, ‘Michelle Weiss, 340 Pine St Suite 504, San Francisco, CA 94104, (415) 466 - 8717 Grow SEP = 2 2015 oo a 8 {Pare prebe ce artge de onts cha ua of rmanro Proc of Service of Bummons, (POS-010) (NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served $d es an rch ander 2 (fe panon und under Hous name of pec: DENN 3, C1 on banat of apectty: under: £1 CoP 416.10 (corporation) (20 418.60 (minor) [1 cP 416.20 ott corporation) (OCP 418.70 (corres) Ty 60P 416.40 (eseociten or pernaratip) [=] CCP 41890 (atherand parce) ter pect 4.1 by pervonal cetvery on (date: SaeGarmanmanste Semone10 " R 2 “ 16 6 "7 8 Be. BRR BRA FI ED MICHAEL 0. STEPHENSON (CBN 270724) dis die Pend MICHELLE L. WEISS (CBN 291904) ‘Law Offic if Michael O. Stephenson - se onmorreg isco, CA RI Telephone: (415) 466-8717 BY: DENNIS RAT AC | Ezine: 88) 563-7661 : Email: M.Stephenson@BayAreaBicycleLaw.com Email: M, Weiss@BayAreaBicycleLaw.com jerk Attomeys for Plaintiff’ David Haley SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DAVID HALEY, » caseno( GC-15-5 47735 > Plaintiff, ; } COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY and vs. ) PUNITIVE DAMAGES ) 1, NEGLIGENCE; UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. aDelaware) 2, NEGLIGENCE PER SE; Corporation; RASIER LLC, a Delaware Limited BILITY; EupCamrnsgeientic ™'} |} STATUTORY LIREITY Delaware Limited Liability Company; 5 2 : KONSTANTIN RADINOVICH; 0g = NEGLIGENT, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. ) HIRING/RETENTION; ) 6, VICARIOUS LIABILITY; and Defendants. } 7, STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY. ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL UNLIMITED JURISDICTION Plaintiff Mr. David Haley (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Haley”) brings this action by and through his attorneys, Michael O. Stephenson and Michelle L. Weiss, and hereby complains of the defendants above-named, and each of them as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE Page 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 " 2 43 4 6 16 7 18 19 a 28 26 ar 1. This honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter, and venue is proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395, because at all times relevant, the events which combined to produce the injuries to Plaintiff occurred in the County of San Francisco, State of California. 2, Mr. David Haley has incurred more than the jurisdictional minimum of this court in medical expenses and lost wages. 3. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this court. PARTIES A. Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff David Haley is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of the State of California. B. Defendants 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant KONSTANTIN RADINOVICH (hereinafter “RADINOVICH”) was, and now is, a resident of the State of California, residing in Alameda County. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC (hereinafter “UBER”) is a Delaware Corporation and/or Does 1 -10 are corporations and/or business entities of a form unknown, Jwhich run a Transportation Network Company (hereinafter “TNC*) known as UBER. which [provide a number of transportation options and vehicles for users of their service, including a low cost option called Uber X, through an online-enabled application (hereinafter “APP”). UBER has its principal place of business in and conducts business in San Francisco, California, 7. Plainti is informed and believes and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that RASIER LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of UBER and the parent company of RASIER-CA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company. RASIER LLC & RASIER-CA LLC have their principal place of business and conducts business in San Francisco, California, 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that UBER and DOES 1-10, use RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or DOES. Page 2 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 “ 6 6 7 8 cy 20 a 22 24 25 8 21-30 to operate a TNC known as Uber X, a division of UBER and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30's commercial enterprise. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that RASIER-CA LLC has been assigned Carrier ID PSG0032512 by the California Public [Utilities Commission (hereinafter “PUC”) and that UBER, RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 use Carrier ID PSG0032512 to operate its TNC, Uber X in California. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges {that RASIER-CA LLC is the insurance certificate holder for the insurance that UBER is required {to carry as TNC by the PUC, which is uses for its Uber X operations. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, Defendant RADINOVICH was the driver of the vehicle that injured Plaintiff David Haley. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that on July 2, 2015, at the time of this collision, Defendant RADINOVICH was a driver/transportation provider who was operating his vehicle utilizing the UBER APP and as such was an agent and/or employee and/or partner of UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and/or 21-30. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that at all times material to this complaint, UBER and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER- CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and/or Does 21-30 were the employer of Defendant RADINOVICH, and/or his partner and/or an agency relationship existed between them. 14, Does 11-20 are designated in this Complaint as the owners of the vehicle driven by RADINOVICH at the time of the collision. 15. Plaintiff is ignorant to the names of the Defendants sued herein and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named Defendants may be Page 3 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 18 4 6 6 v7 18 19 20 a 23 24 8 responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries herein alleged were caused by the aforementioned Defendants. 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that at all times herein material to the matters alleged in this Complaint, each of the [Defendants was the agent and/or employee and/or partner of each of the remaining Defendants ‘and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such an agency and/or employment, and/or aided and/or abetted the others and/or ratified the acts of the others so as to make them liable for the Plaintiff's damages. 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that there is a unity of interest and operation between UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER- CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 such that their separate and independent classification is but a fiction and that each is the alter-ego of the other. 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Defendants are liable for the acts of each other through principals of respondeat superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego and other forms of vicarious liability. Il. FACTS 19, Mr. David Haley was severely injured while riding his bicyele in San Francisco on July 2, 2015 as a result of a collision negligently and recklessly caused by a driver for Defendant UBER. 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that the driver, Mr. RADINOVICH, was in the scope of his employment with Defendant UBER when he caused the collision. 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 and their Uber X service have been classified by the PUC as a TNC. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER ~ CA LLC and Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 ~ 30, through its services, including Uber X, provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using Page 4 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES40 1" 2 8 “ 16 16 "7 8 9 20 a 22 23 24 25 gS its APP or platform to connect persons wanting to procure transportation (hereinafter “USERS”, ‘with those who, utilizing their own personal vehicles, want to provide transportation in exchange for compensation (hereinafter “DRIVERS”). 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that RADINOVICH was logged on to the UBER APP at the time that the collision occurred and was appearing as a UBER and/or Uber X DRIVER available for providing {transportation services to USERS and/or was viewing, monitoring and/or interacting with his wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS at or near the time of the collision, and/or was either traveling to a potential customer that has requested his services using the UBER APP, and/or was transporting a customer that he had picked up using the UBER APP. 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that before USERS can utilize the APP, USERS must become “partners” of UBER, UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER - CA LLC and Does | -10 and 21 - 30 by logging into UBER’s APP or web based portal and provide information about themselves to UBER including their name, l, credit card number, mobile telephone, etc. Only registered USERS can use UBER’s APP to prearrange transportation service. 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that before DRIVERS can participate in UBER’s, RASIER LLC’s, RASIER ~ CA LLC’s and Does 1 — 10 and 21 — 30’s prearranged transportation service, including but not limited to Uber X, they must apply to be a DRIVER by logging into UBER’s APP or web based portal and providing information including but not limited to their name, phone number, address, e-mail, banking information, vehicle registration, insurance, vehicle description, and have their vehicle inspected. UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER - CA LCC and Does 1 -10 and 21 ~ 30 are required to conduct a background investigation of their DRIVERS including but not limited to their driving and criminal history (and thereafter conduct periodic reviews of their driving history). UBER, RASIER LCC and RASIER - CA LLC and Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 — 30 then evaluate the driver and only permit those drivers it finds suitable to become registered DRIVERS on its APP. UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER — CA LLC and Does 1 -10 and 21 — 30 reserve Page 5 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 14 18 6 7 18 9 20 a 22 24 26 the right to remove or delete DRIVERS from their systems at their discretion. Therefore UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER - CA LLC and Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 ~ 30 are entirely in control of ‘who can use their system as either a DRIVER or USER. 26, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges ‘that only after USERS and DRIVERS have provided the information required by UBER, /RASIER LLC AND RASIER - CA LLC and Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 ~ 30 can they participate in the rearranged transportation service. 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges ‘that USERS seeking transportation services provided by UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER — CA LLC and Does 1 — 10 and 21 — 30, such as Uber X and its DRIVERS, log on to the APP which is under the URL, www.uber.com, and arrive at a main screen that says UBER. From that /main screen they can navigate among different types of transportation services (generally distinguished by type of vehicle) including Uber X which is touted as “the low cost UBER.” 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges Jthat USERS who chose Uber X are shown a GPS map which displays vehicles available to [Provide transportation services in their area. After requesting a DRIVER, the APP alerts nearby DRIVERS who must timely indicate their acceptance of the USER’S transportation request by manually interfacing with the APP. Once the DRIVER accepts USER’s request that driver's name, photo, vehicle description, user rating, and time from pickup are displayed to the USER. 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that DRIVERS, in order to be available to provide USERS transportation services in exchange for compensation, must log on to the UBER and/or Uber X APP and indicate their availability. Their location and information is then visible to USERS and DRIVERS can access a screen on their electronic communication device/smart phone/GPS called a “God View”, which shows them a map of where others using the system are located. 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that the PUC has found that, “clearly, each TNC is receiving either an economic benefit or a Page 6 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 12 43 1“ 48 6 "7 18 19 a 22 23 25 ar ‘business benefit. At a minimum, they are receiving increased patronage with the growth of their businesses.” 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges ‘that UBER and Uber X’s brand and value to USERS, and potential USERS, is enhanced by having a significant number of DRIVERS registered, visible to the USERS on the UBER APP, and available in close proximity to USERS so as to provide transportation services. Indeed [UBER stated on its website “When you request a driver we'll find a driver and track their location on the map. Your driver’s name and car details appear in the app and you can message or call if you need to.” UBER’s, and/or RASIER LLC’s and/or Does 1 - 10 and 21 ~ 30°s competitive advantages in the transportation industry is fostered by having an APP that shows both DRIVERS and USERS where the other is, providing information and reviews about the DRIVER and USER, permitting communication by text and phone between DRIVER and USER and by demonstrating the large number of available DRIVERS which are logged on to the UBER |APP. 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges {that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 ~ 30 derive an economic benefit from not only having USERS transported by DRIVERS collecting a [portion of the charge for transportation, it derives an economic benefit, and competitive advantage, by displaying the location of available vehicles near the USER’s location. USERS seeing the ready supply of UBER and/or Uber X vehicles have greater consumer confidence that they will be able to obtain one-to-one prearranged transportation services rapidly and are therefore more likely to be repeat customers. In this way UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER - CA LLC and/or Does | -10 and 21 — 30 enhance their business by attracting a larger number of USERS to their services and, therefore, increase their market share of the transportation industry and commerce in the business sector in which they are providing service. Therefore, regardless of whether a DRIVER actually has a USER in their car, is on the way toa USER who has engaged the DRIVER through the APP, or simply is logged on to the APP as an Page 7 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 “ 12 43 “ 45 16 available DRIVER, UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 -10 land 21 — 30 derives an economic benefit from having DRIVERS registered on the service. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that the nature of the APP and its interface is both visual and tactile, Therefore, DRIVERS must monitor their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS so as to be aware of the location ition themselves near areas of high USER demand, The APP provides for texting and phone calling and instant messaging between the of other UBER and/or Uber X vehicles so they can po: DRIVER and the USER. 34, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that UBER and/or Uber X DRIVERS must respond quickly to a USER request for service by physically interfacing with the APP thereby leading to distraction while a DRIVER monitors and/or uses the APP on their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS. Defendants UBER and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21 — 30 knew, or should have known use of the APP by DRIVERS, including but not limited to RADINOVICH, in the manner intended and actually required by UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER - CA LLC and/or Does 1 ~ 10 and 21 -30, would be in violation of California Vehicle Code 23123 which, in subsection (a) states “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless {telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands ~ free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving,” 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges {that Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 -10 and 21 — 30 knew or should have known that use of the APP by DRIVERS, including but not limited to RADINOVICH, in the manner intended and actually required by UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or Does 1 - 10 and 21 ~ 30, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1- 10 and 21 ~ 30, would be in violation of CVC § 23123.5 which states “(a) A person shall not (drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice operated and hands-free operation to dictate, Page 8 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 1" 2 8 “ 6 6 send, or listen to a text-based communication, and itis used in that matter while driving. (b) As ‘used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based [communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message or electronic mail.” 36, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges {that Pursuant to CVC § 26708 any portable Global Positioning System (GPS), may only be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower comer of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower comer of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door -to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.” 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that the UBER APP is, by its nature, a GPS. 38, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that use by UBER and Uber X DRIVERS of A GPS while engaged in the business activity of being 2 UBER or Uber X DRIVER is not door-to-door navigation and, therefore, violates California Vehicle Code Section 26708. 39, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the status of RADINOVICH as an UBER and/or Uber X DRIVER, including but not limited to the use and/or monitoring of the APP and its interface, was a proximate cause of this collision including but not limited to its causing RADINOVICH to be distracted and/or in a hurry while driving. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that the design of the UBER APP and DRIVER interface, requires drivers to use the APP in such a manner as to violate the law, including but not limited to CVC §§ 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708, the legislative history of which is discussed, in part, in People v. Spriggs, (2013) 215 CalApp. 4 Supp. 1, thereby causing distraction to DRIVERS, including RADINOVICH Page 9 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 4 45 16 7 8 9 a and, further, that RADINOVICH!s distraction was a substantial factor in causing the subject accident and resultant harm. 41, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. RADINOVICH drove into the path of Mr. Haley without first checking to see if anyone was approaching in Mr. Haley’s lane. 42, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, there was nothing outside of Mr. RADINOVICH’s vehicle that 'was obstructing Mr. RADINOVICH’s view of Mr. Haley’s green light. 43. Mr. RADINOVICH should have seen that Mr. Haley was proceeding into the intersection. 44, Mr. RADINOVICH should have been aware that Mr. Haley had a green light. 45. As Mr. Haley approached the intersection during the subject incident, Mr. Haley had the right-of-way to proceed forward. 46. At the moment Mr. RADINOVICH drove into the path of Mr. Haley, Mr. Haley had the right-of-way to proceed forward. 47. Mr. RADINOVICH drove forward into the path of Mr. Haley when it was not safe to do so. 48, During the subject incident, Mr. RADINOVICH failed to keep a proper lookout. 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges [that during the subject incident, Mr. RADINOVICH did not see Mr. Haley until after Mr. RADINOVICH had already blocked Mr. Haley's path. 50, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that during the subject incident, Mr. RADINOVICH did not see Mr. Haley until the collision had already occurred. 51, Asaresult of the subject collision, Mr. Haley was injured. 52. Asa result of the subject collision, it was reasonably necessary for Mr. Haley to be transported to San Francisco General Hospital. Page 10 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 1% 1“ 6 16 "7 1. 1» 20 a 2 23 24 8 53, As a result of the subject collision, it was reasonably necessary for Mr. Haley to be transported to the hospital by ambulance. 54. As a result of injuries sustained in the subject collision, Mr. Haley has received reasonably necessary medical treatment. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTI (Piaintiff’s Claim for Negligence Against All Defendants) 55. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and the subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 56, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Defendants, and cach of them, owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable/due care as well as statutory duties established in California Vehicle §§ 21950, 23123, 23123.5, and/or 26708. 57. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 were negligent in their development, implementation, and use of the APP in the provision of prearranged transportation services in such a manner so as to lead to DRIVERS, including Defendant RADINOVICH, to be distracted and/or inattentive while driving. 58. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 — 10 and 21 — 30 required its DRIVERS to use a smartphone APP and/GPS that causes, and did cause, driver distraction and inattention to the roadway, such that it was the proximate cause of the subject accident and resulting personal injuries to Plaintiff. 59. As Mr. Haley was traveling northbound on 3rd Street, approaching the intersection with Stevenson Street, Mr. Haley had the legal right-of-way. 60. Plaintit is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that accordingly, any eastbound traffic desiring to cross the intersection to continue on Stevenson Street was required by law to yield to Mr. Haley. Page 11 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 1" 2 8 “4 6 16 "7 8 1» a 22 23 R ar 61. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at the time of the subject accident, Defendant RADINOVICH was operating his vehicle in the scope and course of his employment/agency/partnership with UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 62. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Defendant RADINOVICH negligently managed, maintained, and operated the said motor vehicle so as to cause Mr. Haley to be violently injured in a collision, 63. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at said time and place, Defendant RADINOVICH operated said motor vehicle in a dangerous manner; failed to avoid a collision; failed to observe and exercise reasonable and due care and precaution and to maintain proper and adequate control of the motor vehicle; failed to keep a proper lookout for others; failed to safely make a left turn; failed to obey traffic laws and regulations; and was possibly negligent in other respects not now known to Plaintiff but which ‘may become known prior to or atthe time of trial, 64, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges ‘that Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, and each of them, through their wrongful acts as set forth above, breached their duties of ‘care and said breach was the proximate cause of Mr. Haley’s injuries. 65. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that as a proximate result of the conduct of the previously referenced Defendants, Mr. Haley was injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining shock and injury to the body, nervous system, and person, all of which have caused and continue to cause Mr. Haley mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering, all to Mr. Haley’s general damage in amounts not fully ascertained, but that are to be determined at trial according to proof. 66. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Mr. Haley has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses. The full amount of expenses is not fully ascertained, but is to be determined at trial according to proof. Page 12 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 ” 2 8 “ 8 16 67. Asa further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Mr. Haley has sustained a Joss of earings, lost wages, loss of future earnings, and/or loss of future eaming capacity. The full amount of loss of camings, lost wages, and loss of future earnings, and/or loss of future eaming capacity is not fully ascertained, but is to be determined at trial according to proof. 68. As a further proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Mr. Haley's personal property was damaged, all to Plaintiff's damages in amounts to be determined at trial according to proof. 69. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Negligence Per Se Against all Defendants) 70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every {fact and/or allegation set forth in prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. ‘71. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at all times material, the sections of the California Vehicle Code, as set forth elsewhere herein, were in full force and effect at the location of the incident giving rise to this action, 72. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at the time and place of the subject accident, Defendant RADINOVICH failed to do what |was reasonably expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with said statutory sections. 73. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that California Vehicle Code §§ 21950, 23123, 23123.5, and/or 26708 were laws implemented by the state of California to protect individuals from injury or death due to inattentive or Page 13 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 18 4 6 16 distracted drivers. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Plaintiff was and is a member of the class of persons intended to be protected by these laws. 74, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiff a duty to conduct their affairs in accordance with California Vehicle Code §§ 21950, 23123, 23123.5, and/or 26708. 75, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Defendants, and each of them, breached one or more of the duties established under California Vehicle Code §§ 21950, 23123, 23123.5, and/or 26708. 76. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at said time and place, Defendant RADINOVICH violated CVC §§ 22348, 22350, , 21801, 22107, 22100, 21658, 22102, 23103, as well as other sections of the CVC, and the violations roximately/legally caused injury to Plaintiff and caused the associated damages as herein set forth. 77. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that Plaintiff's injuries and damages as set forth herein resulted from an occurrence, the nature of which the above-referenced statutory sections were designed to prevent. 78. Defendants, and each of them, are therefore liable to Plaintiff for negligence per se. 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Statutory Liability/Permissive Use Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-10 and 21-30) Page 14 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 " 2 8 “ 15 16 80. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and/or subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 81. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the aforementioned motor vehicle driven by Defendant RADINOVICH was owned, leased, bailed, registered, controlled, maintained, and/or managed by Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 82. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that said Defendants expressly and impliedly permitted the driver-Defendant to use the vehicle at all times alleged herein, including at the time of the collision alleged in this complaint. 83. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that by reason of the foregoing, and the application of various legal doctrines, theories, and rules, including but not limited to, the “permissive use doctrine” and CVC §§ 17150-17159, et seq, the said defendants, as the owners and/or bailees of the aforementioned motor vehicle, are statutorily liable for the acts and commissions of the vehicle's driver to whom permission to operate said vehicle was gi at the time of the alleged collision. 84, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that for the foregoing reasons, each/every defendant is responsible for Plaintiff's injuries resulting from the negligent and wrongful acts and omissions of the driver of the vehicle. 85. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that as a proximate result of said acts and status of defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered all the damages set forth elsewhere herein, 86. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Page 15 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 1" 2 8 “ 16 16 others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Negligent Entrustment Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-10 and 21-30) 87. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 88. At said time and place, Mr. RADINOVICH was negligent and unlawful in operating the said motor vehicle. 89. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Defendants Does 1-10 and 21-30 owned said motor vehicle. 90. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Mr. RADINOVICH operated said motor vehicle with the permission and consent of Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 91. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges ‘that at all relevant times, Mr. RADINOVICH may have been incompetent and/or unfit to operate said motor vehicle. 92. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges ‘that at all relevant times, Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 knew, or should have known, that Mr. RADINOVICH was incompetent and/or unfit to operate said motor vehicle, 93. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges {that Mr. RADINOVICH’s incompetence and/or unfitness to drive was a substantial factor in causing harm to Mr. Haley. 94. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with Page 16 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 18 4 18 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 25 ar “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff's Claim for Negligent Hiring/Retention Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-10 and 21-30) 95. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. allegation set forth in the prior and subsequer 96. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges {that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 owed the general public a duty of reasonable care in hiring, training, and supervision of its DRIVERS. 97. Upon information and belief Plaintiff alleges that Mr. RADINOVICH was unfit to perform the work for which he was hired; that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 knew or should have known that RADINOVICH was unfit and that this unfitness created a particular risk to others; that RADINOVICH’s unfitness harmed Plaintiff; and that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30's negligence in hiring, supervising, and retaining RADINOVICH was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm. 98. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges {that persons seeking to provide transportation services provided by UBER, RASIER LLC and RASIER ~ CA LLC and Does i ~ 10 and 21 ~ 30, such as Uber X visit the URL, }www.uber.com, and arrive at a main screen that says “UBER,” “EARN MONEY WITH US,” “There’s never been a better time to drive with Uber,” and “Signing up is easy, and you'll be earning money in no time.” From that main screen they can click a button that says “LEARN MORE.” Page 17 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 1“ 2 1% “4 6 6 7 18 19 20 a 23 ar 99. After clicking said “LEARN MORE” button, the person is shown a screen that says “IT’S EASY TO BECOME A DRIVER,” “We'll let you know when you've been approved,” /and “Then, we'll give you a phone with the Uber app for drivers.” 100. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that this breach of duty was the proximate cause of harm to Plaintiff, causing him to suffer significant special and general damages in an amount to be proved at the time of trial. 101. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Plaintiff’s Claim for Vicarious Liability/Agency Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-10 and 21-30) 102. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein. 103. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Defendant RADINOVICH was employed by Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 104. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Mr. RADINOVICH’s conduct was within the scope of his employment with Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 105. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Mr. RADINOVICH’s conduct was reasonably related to the kinds of tasks that Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 Page 18 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 8 “4 6 16 and 21-30 had employed Mr. RADINOVICH to perform; was reasonably foreseeable in light of Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 business and/or Mr. RADINOVICH’s job responsibilities; and was ratified by Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30. 106. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that at all relevant times, Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC, and/or RASIER-CA LLC, and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 ratified Mr. RADINOVICH’s wrongful conduct. 107. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Products Liability-Bystander Theory Against Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, and Does 1-10 and 21-30) 108. Plaintiff incorporates, repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every fact and/or allegation set forth in the prior and subsequent paragraphs of this complaint with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein 109. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon said information and belief alleges, that Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does | - 10 and 21 — 30 designed and/or distributed the APP and/or GPS interface/system that UBER DRIVERS, including RADINOVICH, were required to use and furthermore trained or failed to adequately train them on how to use the APP and interface. 110. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges ‘that in doing so UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 -10 and 21 30 did place the APP and GPS system into use and on the market. Page 19 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 1" 2 8 “ 6 16 "7 ry 9 BO 8 BR BSB 111. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1 -10 and 21 — 30 had, or should have had, knowledge that the APP and/or GPS interface would be used without inspection for defects and would be used in such a way as to violate one or more provisions of the California Vehicle Code and/or to create a significant risk of the type of harm suffered by the Plaintiff in this action. 112, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that the defects in the APP and/or GPS interface were the direct and proximate cause of harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that strict liability extends not only in favor of the users and consumers, but also in favor of bystanders such as pedestrians and those riding bicycles. (Elmore v. American Motors Corp., (1969) 70 Cal.2d 578, 585-587; Baker v. Chrysler Corp., (1976) 55 Cal.App.34 710, 715, Preissman v. Ford Motor Co., (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 841, 855.) 113. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that the APP and/or GPS interface were/was defective. 114. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of information and belief alleges that as a proximate result of the product defect, Plaintiff suffered significant general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 115, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of said information and belief alleges, that the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, may have been engaged in with “malice” (despicable conduct which was carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others) and/or was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, according to law and according to proof, as follows: Page 20 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES10 " 2 13 4 16 16 FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, and SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION 1, General damages, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 2. Special damages for medical and related expenses, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial; 3. Lost wages, loss of future camings, and loss of earning capacity, in amounts according to proof at the time of trial; 4, Property damage and loss of use of said property, in amounts according to proof at the time of trial; 5. Pre-judgment interest on damages, if appropriate; 6. Costs of suit; 7, Punitive Damages; and 8. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: OF /O1 74S Wall, lhe MICHAEL O. STEPHENSON ‘MICHELLE L. WEISS ‘Law Offices of Michael O. Stephenson Attorneys for Plaintiff; David Haley Page 21 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES0 " 2 2 “ BSRRRRERUVB VERIFICATION ‘The undersigned for himself declares: {Lam the plaintiff in the above-titled action. 1 have read the forgoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true by my own knowledge except for those matters which are therein stated upon information and belicf. and. a8 to those matters. I believe them to be true. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is, {true and correct, Pate 5 29 2057 DAVID HALEY Page 22 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:0 1" 2 8 1“ 16 16 7 8 1° a DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff David Haley demands a trial by jury on all claims. Dated: OF/01 /1S MICHAEL O. STEPHENSON MICHELLE L. WEISS Law Offices of Michael O. Si Attorneys for Plaintiff, David Haley Page 23 ‘VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES[Fev ORR TROUT TORRE fm Bam Bram ata soe. aoe 291900, Iu, ‘Su ST cn won es Sto aa had = : SEP -2 2015 |COURT OF CALFORMA, counTy oF San Francsico mctsoonss 400 McAllister Street CLERK OF THE gover] cvno mw cone San Prancisco 94102 be US TOYAMA ec ‘Court Puy ‘CASE NAME: Del aye, UBER TRCADNOLOGTE, NG, «Dore ops RASTER. ‘abrusd Linh Compr EASTER CALL Dore ny Company case Coven see convince omirain CTE] B anaet Clune = | yee OU315-547735 Gers Saran | rita pe by ca sso Sooner) _"“ecatame conch sas | om as 1-6 boo Tost Be complied (00 nstucions 0 pa9@ J) Fr Chak one Bax below forthe case type at best doscrbes tis case: me caus ‘edaay Compe cet Lote wo 2) Pe screws) a mans eouk ues ene) Cre mr [S iiearocaeten on C-] Antara mpd 2) Car PiraD Pwenainnropry 7] Ow cnc Coen te peporecneoa vce oge 8 toto rene © ohecomaon Seals ign Pree ly 2 matress Ener Ton (Medical malpractice (45) [J Eminent domaintinverse ‘insurance cov cialis arising from the ca oene es coon Sesame oon et [Wren bend onertoneter ties pean C=] Orr opey 20 Entreoment gent cargo ar Cy creer etree 9 Detenato 1) camer) estan ct Compe raat 1 econ Efncoan race pm (0, boon Hct cane rt pct tv) 2) CS one ronson oe EP sectors) el eoeeeeeee oer en APOIO oO avert mderprt owas) 1 Pen: eto ew) Saree aes ‘Wrongful termination (36) 2) wort or mandate 02) ec oa “ Seite [erent ren 2) Ss o_compler under 3 400 of Cllrs Rules of Car Wi case in ae = Co] crpesumte’ ceaperaayegevonad pares 4] Largerumar of wtnesses 1. Ghaneve moon prctce ras fie reo. [——] Coord vith ead actos ponding noe or mare cous inves ta wl be te consuming tesco inater conten sate cr counts orf ated cat (1) Sttstenl encanto doaeresay eaience 1, (7) Subs! posers uel supervon Remedios sought (hac at ta poi aA monetary] nrmonetay decry or ance reef «-[—Tpuntve 2 4 Naber eae of con oc 8 tnmene Cole CM ra sda ecion a I her oe any known related cases le nd serve 8 rte of related orm mors) eee) Michelle Weiss ee WOTICE «+ Plain must flo this cover sheot wth the frst paper lad inthe scion or proceeding (except smal claims cases or cases fled under the Probate Code, Fansly Code, or Wollare and initusions Code). (Cal Rules of Cour, rule 3.220) Faire to fhe may resi In sane. * Fle ths Coversheet in adition t any cover sheet required by local cout re. + Ithis case is complex under rule 3.400 ot seq. of the Cabforis Rules of Court, you must sorve 8 copy ofthis cover sheet on all ‘other partis othe acion or proceeding. + Unless this isa collecions case under rule 3.740 ora complex case, this cover sheet wil be use for statistical purposes. ee CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ea aacaa athonaner a 8 Laos eaeINSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET ay ‘To Plaintifls and Others Filing First Papers. If you are fling « fist paper (for example, a complaint in civil case, you must” ryt anil, long wah ret pep he Cv ose Cover Shel corte on pag Ts orator wil sed ope Statsies about the types and numbers of cases fled. You must complete hems 1 ‘6 on the sheet. In hem 1, you must chock ‘one box forthe case ype thet best describes the case. Ifthe case fs both a goneral and a more speci type of case listed in to 1, heck the more specie one. If the case hes multiple causes of econ, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. ‘To assist ou in na hg rami canes a br reach ae pa a we Gad bi, Aco shoot must be fled ont ale to fle a cover shoot withthe frst peper fled ina civil case may subject a party, tart boric eonctansundarrdss 230 and 3.220 fw Cliona fes of Coat ‘To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. “collections case" under rue 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money ‘owed ina sum stated o be cotain that isnot more than $25,000, exclusive of intrest and atiomey's fees, erisng from a transaction in hich propery, ences, of money wes acqred on ced. clecons case does net che an acon soaking he along: (1) xt ‘damages, (2) puntive. damages, (3) recovery of reat (8) recovery of personal propery, or (5) 2 Soccer rte of a casa sou 3740 celacdns eae cr is are ott be Oar fae geal timeor-sarvice roqurements and case management rues, unless a defendartfles a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections, ‘e090 wil be subject othe requirements fr service end abaining @ judgment in re 3.740. ‘To Parties in Complex Casas. in complex cases only, parties must aso use the Civ Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the catacomb ote cong un 2409 Colla de ot Cat, mate deadly the appropriate boxes in homs 1 and 2. I a plitif designates a case es comps, the cover sheet must be served with the cenflotion al urs to he aco. A cedar ray Ne an seve ro ata than ta tne tse appearence a der the plantif's designation, a courter-designation thet the case isnot complex, o,f the plentt has made no designation a designation that aia Sear eee a a ee eee “Suneemarnreyey ™Sleaceweanmenyon— Ruiratyees ttt once mg comer eee ae See ane enim seo, aera Sessa cece tee const tae ems enero ee i Bees mee Soe cert ae rem ey, sumer a cane erent meters = eee | ees ry omen mt rt ay oe See. seaes renal onset imeanen Cortese gn (ror meant Cheap meet Te es Farol SE ane ae ‘ Other Coverage (rok unpaid ae : 5 art ae mh Screams he (Germ Conan pute Other Enforcement of Judgment coat a ni EEE naw etre rea Inertena Boy uxy/POIWD rong Even 3) ea meat ft rezone eee ery jo nel ee aa Se Seals = ‘nares am eae ree mrome a ee apie cmc a ama onesies ities, eee etn 1 fea an, oe SSPE, means aot are eo aes ene ote me eee | EE same —s. met on 8 yay Bre ees ea (25) Wit of Mandate (02) — ad eee ie a “a uct Seen mere a seca tn = Se eto a oe aR eae concn =e ah ar enna on cng te ‘Employment (15) ‘Review of Health Officer Order. er Se ae CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET a