Corey Liuget v. Ian Danney, Et Al.

Case 8:18-cv-01683 Document 1 Filed 09/18/18 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1
1 Robinson, Brog, Leinwand, Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C.

PETER R. GINSBERG
2 875 Third Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
3 Telephone: 212.603.6300
Fax: 212.956.2164
4 Email: prg@robinsonbrog.com
(pro hac vice admission pending)
5
Buchalter
6 A Professional Corporation
BARRY A. SMITH SBN: 48697
7 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730
8 Telephone: 213.891.0700
Fax: 213.896.0400
9 Email: bsmith@buchalter.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
COREY LIUGET, Case No. 8:18-cv-1683
14
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
15
vs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
IAN DANNEY and PERFORMANCE
17 ENHANCEMENT PROFESSIONALS,
INC.,
18
Defendants.
19
20
Plaintiff Corey Liuget (“Plaintiff” or “Liuget”), for his Complaint against Defendants Ian
21
22 Danney (“Danney”) and Performance Enhancement Professionals, Inc. (“PEP” and, together with
23 Danney, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:
24
25
26
27
28
BUCHALTER
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. 8:18-cv-1683
A PROFES SION AL CORPORAT ION
LOS ANG ELES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
BN 34072344v1
1 NATURE OF THE ACTION

2 1. This is an action by Liuget, a professional football player for the Los Angeles
3
Chargers ( “Chargers”) of the National Football League (“NFL”), to hold Defendants responsible
4
for Danney’s malicious and fraudulent conduct in injecting Liuget with a substance that the U.S.
5
Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has not approved and that the NFL Policy on
6
7 Performance-Enhancing Substances (2016) (“Policy”) prohibits (a “Prohibited Substance”), for
8 injecting Liuget with a prescription medication without having a medical license, and for
9 administering Liuget with injections without being certified or licensed to administer injections,
10 all without Liuget’s consent or knowledge of the contents of the injections.
11
2. As a direct result of Defendants’ extreme, irresponsible, unauthorized and harmful
12
conduct, Liuget tested positive for a Prohibited Substance in violation of the Policy and was
13
suspended for the first four games of the 2018 NFL Season, causing Liuget public humiliation,
14
15 emotional suffering and economic damages.
16 3. Liuget is a starting defensive tackle for the Chargers, a role he has maintained
17 since the Chargers drafted him in 2011. Liuget has never intentionally or knowingly used a
18
Prohibited Substance and, prior to the incident herein described, has never violated, or been
19
subject to discipline or suspension under, the Policy.
20
4. Liuget, who is 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighs 300 pounds, has suffered various
21
22 injuries throughout his playing career, including broken metatarsals in both feet. During the
23 2015, 2016 and 2017 NFL Seasons, Danney administered post-game treatments to Liuget to help
24 him with the physical demands of playing in the NFL.
25
26
27
28 2
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 5. On November 14, 2017, Danney injected into Liuget’s feet what Danney said was
2 a high dose of an over-the-counter anti-inflammatory. At no time did Danney inform Liuget that
3
he was injecting Liuget with a Prohibited Substance or prescription medication. Danny, who
4
administers treatment to many professional athletes, including NFL players, is well aware of,
5
familiar with, and knowledgeable about the Policy.
6
7 6. Two days after the injections, Liuget provided a routine urine sample (“November
8 16 Sample”) to collectors acting on behalf of the NFL.

9 7. On January 16, 2018, the NFL informed Liuget that the November 16 Sample
10 tested positive for a Prohibited Substance. The letter stated that, as a result of the positive test,
11
the NFL was suspending Liuget for the first four games of the 2018 regular season without pay.
12
8. Liuget’s four-game suspension has caused Liuget public humiliation and mental
13
and emotional suffering in addition to resulting in the loss, inter alia, of approximately a quarter
14
15 of his annual compensation in 2018.
16 9. In addition, the Chargers used Liuget’s suspension as leverage to renegotiate his
17 player contract, resulting in a decrease in compensation of approximately $15,000,000.00.
18
10. Had Danney lived up to his professional duties and responsibilities, as well as his
19
promise to provide Liuget with treatment that was safe and consistent with NFL rules and
20
regulations, Liuget would not have suffered, and would not now be suffering from, the damages
21
22 herein alleged.
23 11. By this action, Liuget seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the injuries that he
24 sustained due to Danney’s conduct and bad faith actions, in an amount yet to be fully determined
25 but believed to be in excess of $15 million.
26
27
28 3
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 THE PARTIES
2 12. Liuget is an individual residing in Irvine, California.
3
13. On information and belief, Danney is an individual who resides in Scottsdale,
4
Arizona and transacts business throughout the United States, including in the State of California.
5
14. PEP is an Arizona corporation, incorporated on December 11, 2002, with its
6
7 principal place of business located at 9495 East San Salvador Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85258.
8 PEP provides elite athletes with training, nutrition, therapy, regenerative and functional medicine.
9 Danney is PEP’s Director, President and Chief Executive Officer. PEP is obligated to supervise,
10 and responsible and otherwise liable for, the actions of Danney.
11
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12
This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The matter in
13
controversy is in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the action is between
14
15 citizens of different states.
16 15. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $15,000,000.
17 16. There is complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiff and Defendants.
18
Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a citizen of the State of California and resides in
19
Irvine, California. Danney is, and at all relevant times has been, a citizen of the State of Arizona
20
and resides in Scottsdale Arizona. PEP is, and at all relevant times has been, an Arizona
21
22 corporation with its principle place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona.
23 17. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of
24 the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in California.
25
26
27
28 4
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have had
2 substantial and continuous business contacts with California and because Defendants caused
3
injury to Plaintiff while conducting business in the State of California.
4
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5
Corey Liuget’s NFL Career
6
7 19. The Chargers selected Liuget, a defensive tackle, as the 18th pick of the first round
8 of the 2011 NFL Draft.

9 20. In 2012, his second season in the NFL, Liuget started all sixteen games and lead
10 his team in several statistical categories including sacks, tackles, tackles for loss, and passes
11
defended. Over the course of seven years, Liuget has played in 102 games, starting in 100 of
12
them.
13
21. Liuget is a leader on the field, in the locker room, and in his community. He is
14
15 known for, and takes pride in, his tireless work ethic, his dedication to his craft, and his
16 commitment to professionalism and community service.
17 Training and Therapy with Danney
18
22. In or around June or early July 2015, Liuget began to train with Danney at his PEP
19
training facility located in Scottsdale, Arizona.
20
23. Upon information and belief, Danney is not a licensed medical professional and is
21
22 not licensed or authorized by law to administer injections or prescribe, dispense or administer
23 prescription medications or medical treatment.
24
25
26
27
28 5
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 24. Beginning in June or early July 2015, Liuget has trained with Danney at the PEP
2 facility in Scottsdale, Arizona and elsewhere until Liuget’s 2018 suspension. Liuget paid Danney
3
approximately $1,500 per week for personal training during the off-season and has paid Danney
4
an additional approximately $40,000 for in-season therapy. Since he began training with Danney
5
in July 2015 and at all relevant times thereafter, including through January 16, 2018, Liuget has
6
7 not used any other private personal trainer.
8 25. Several other NFL athletes were training with Danney when Liuget began his own
9 training in July 2015, and Danney continues to train many professional athletes.
10 26. During the 2015, 2016 and 2017 NFL Seasons, Danney regularly travelled to
11
California and administered post-game treatments to Liuget, consisting primarily of soft-tissue
12
treatment and post-game hydration and vitamin infusions.
13
27. On November 14, 2017, while visiting Liuget in Irvine, California, Danney
14
15 administered injections into each of Liuget’s feet. Liuget, who had previously broken metatarsals
16 in each of his feet, was told by Danney that the injections contained a strong dose of an over-the-
17 counter anti-inflammatory that would help reduce pain and aid his recovery.
18
28. Danney was not authorized or licensed to administer injections. Additionally,
19
Danney did not inform Liuget that the injections he administered contained a Prohibited
20
Substance and a prescription medication. Danney’s conduct toward Liuget was both malicious
21
22 and fraudulent.
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 29. Danney is not licensed in the State of California to act as a trainer or physical
2 therapist, as the State of California requires, and, upon information and belief, Danney is not
3
licensed in the State of Arizona to act as a trainer or physical therapist, as the State of Arizona
4
requires. Further, California law prohibits physical therapists, even when licensed to engage in
5
such activities in the State, to “puncture the skin” when treating patients, as Danney did to Liuget
6
7 when administering injections to Liuget, as alleged herein.
8 30. Upon information and belief, PEP is not licensed to engage in the business of
9 employing trainers or physical therapists in the State of California, upon information and belief in
10 the State of Arizona or, upon information and belief, in any other State.
11
12
The Adverse Analytical Finding
13
31. On November 16, 2017, Liuget provided a routine urine sample (the “Sample”) to
14
15 Drug Free Sport, LLC (“Drug Free Sport”), which administers the collection of samples for the
16 NFL and other sports leagues.
17 32. On November 17, 2017, Drug Free Sport sent the Sample to The Sports Medicine
18
Research & Testing Laboratory (“SMRTL”) in Salt Lake City, Utah, for analysis and storage.
19
33. SMRTL’s analysis resulted in an adverse analytical finding (“AAF”), i.e., the
20
presence of a Prohibited Substance.
21
22 34. The AAF was memorialized in a Confidential Test Report dated December 12,
23 2017, from SMRTL to Dr. John Lombardo, the Program’s Independent Administrator.
24 35. The FDA has not approved the Prohibited Substance for human use in the United
25 States.
26
27
28 7
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 36. Upon information and belief, the Prohibited Substance can only be absorbed in the
2 human body when it is injected.
3
The NFL Suspends Liuget
4
37. In a letter to Liuget and his Certified Advisor dated January 16, 2018 (“January 16
5
Letter”), the NFL informed Liuget that his November 16 Sample had tested positive for a
6
7 Prohibited Substance under the Policy.
8 38. The January 16 Letter also informed Liuget that he would be suspended for the
9 first four games of the 2018 regular season without pay, stating:
10 Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of the Commissioner, (a) you are suspended
11 for the first four (4) games of the 2018 regular season, subject to appeal; (b) you
will be advanced to the next disciplinary stage of the Policy (further violation of
12 which will result in a suspension for a minimum of ten games); and (c) pursuant to
Article 4, Section 9(e) of the CBA, you must forfeit any Forfeitable Salary
13 Allocations on a proportionate weekly basis. Additionally, you will remain on a
reasonable cause testing for a minimum of two seasons and, before you may be
14 reinstated, you must be approved to play by the Independent Administrator.
15
Danney Admits to Injecting Liuget with a Prescription Medication
16
39. Soon after receiving the January 16 Letter, Liuget’s Certified Advisor contacted
17
Danney to inquire about the injections Liuget had received from Danney.
18
19 40. Danney admitted that he had injected Liuget with a prescription medication but
20 denied that he had injected Liuget with a Prohibited Substance. This was the first time Liuget or
21 his Certified Advisor learned that Danney had injected Liuget with a prescription medication.
22 41. In fact, Danney, in addition to administering a prescription drug without a license
23
and without Liuget having a prescription for the medicine and without Liuget’s knowledge or
24
consent, administered a substance banned by the Policy without Liuget’s knowledge or consent.
25
Liuget never has knowingly used, and would never knowingly use, any Prohibited Substance.
26
27
28 8
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 The Chargers Renegotiate Liuget’s Contract

2 42. In reaction to the NFL’s four-game suspension of Liuget, the Chargers informed
3
Liuget’s Certified Advisor that the Team would cut Liuget from the Chargers’ roster if Liuget did
4
not renegotiate his NFL player contract.
5
43. Upon information and belief, the Chargers would not have renegotiated the
6
7 contract but for the four-game suspension.
8 44. Liuget’s new contract with the Chargers, which was executed in March 2018, is
9 for two years—one year less than his previous, five-year 2015 Chargers contract. His maximum
10 total compensation over a three-year period under the renegotiated contract is $14,730,000 less
11
than under his previous contract. In addition, his new contract does not contain a performance-
12
based escalation, which, under his prior contract, offered to Liuget the opportunity to earn an
13
additional $6 million over the duration of the contract.
14
15 Other Damages Suffered by Liuget
16 45. Liuget will not be paid during the four-game suspension. The four-game
17 suspension in the beginning of the 2018 Season will result in the loss of approximately $233,750.
18
46. As a result of the suspension, Liuget lost one commercial endorsement, was not
19
able to secure additional endorsement opportunities and personal appearances were canceled,
20
causing additional economic harm to Liuget.
21
22 47. Danney’s harmful actions have caused Liuget public humiliation and emotional
23 suffering and have irreparably damaged Liuget’s reputation as a professional athlete and member
24 of the community.
25 48. Liuget continues to struggle in the wake of the publicity surrounding his AAF and
26
suspension.
27
28 9
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Battery – Prohibited Substance)
2
Liuget repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-46 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
3
4 Danney either knew, or had a duty to Liuget to know, the nature of the substance he
5 administered to Liuget.
6 Danney intentionally or with reckless disregard administered a Prohibited Substance to
7
Liuget. At no time did Liuget consent to being administered a Prohibited Substance.
8
As a direct result of Danney’s harmful and nonconsensual touching of Liuget, Liuget
9
suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
10
11 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Battery – Prescription Medication)
12
13
Danney intentionally or with reckless disregard administered a prescription medication to
14
Liuget. Danney is not a licensed medical professional and is not authorized by law to administer
15
16 prescription medication. At no time did Liuget consent to being administered a prescription
17 medicine.
18 As a direct result of Danney’s harmful and nonconsensual touching of Liuget, Liuget
19
suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
20
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21 (Medical Battery – Prohibited Substance)
22 Liuget repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-46 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
23 Liuget consented to a specific course of treatment. Danney, however, performed a
24
substantially different treatment by administering a Prohibited Substance to Liuget. At no time
25
did Liuget consent to being administered a Prohibited Substance.
26
27
28 10
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 Danney’s deliberate deviation from the treatment to which Liuget consented was a
2 substantial factor in causing Liuget’s harm.
3
As a direct result of Danney’s actions, Liuget suffered damages in an amount to be
4
determined at trial.
5
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6 (Medical Battery – Prescription Medication)
7
8
Liuget consented to a specific course of treatment by Danney. Danney, however,
9
performed a substantially different treatment by administering a prescription medication to
10
11 Liuget. At no time did Liuget consent to being administered a prescription medication.
12 Danney’s deliberate deviation from the treatment to which Liuget consented was a
13 substantial factor in causing Liuget’s harm.

14 As a direct result of Danney’s actions, Liuget suffered damages in an amount to be
15
16
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 (Intentional Misrepresentation – Prohibited Substance)
19
Danney represented to Liuget that the treatment, including the administration of health
20
supplements, would be consistent with the Policy and otherwise would be safe and appropriate.
21
Danney’s representations were false. The treatment Danney administered to Liuget
22
23 included the administration of a Prohibited Substance, was not safe and was the proximate cause
24 of Liuget unintentionally violating the Policy.
25 Danney knew or was reckless in not knowing that his representations, on which Liuget
26 reasonably relied, were false or were made without regard for their truth or in reckless disregard
27
for whether his representations were truthful.
28 11
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 As a direct result of Danney’s intentional misrepresentations, Liuget suffered damages in

2 an amount to be determined at trial.
3
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4 (Intentional Misrepresentation – Prescription Medication)
6 Danney represented to Liuget that the treatment, including the administration of health
7
supplements, would be consistent with the Policy and otherwise would be safe and appropriate.
8
Danney’s representations were false. Danney administered a prescription medication to
9
Liuget without a license to do so and without Liuget’s knowledge or consent.
10
11 Danney knew that his representations, on which Liuget reasonably relied, were without
12 regard for their truth or in reckless disregard for whether his representations were truthful.
13 As a direct result of Danney’s intentional misrepresentations, Liuget suffered damages in
14 an amount to be determined at trial.
15
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
16 (Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations)
18 Danney knew that Liuget plays for the Chargers pursuant to a multiyear contract.
19
Danney’s intentional act of administering a Prohibited Substance to Liuget was the
20
proximate cause of Liuget unintentionally violating the Policy, which resulted in a four-game
21
suspension and public humiliation and shame.
22
23 Danney knew or should have known that his conduct was certain or substantially certain
24 to result in Liuget testing positive for a Prohibited Substance in violation of Liuget’s contractual
25 obligations to the Chargers and obligations as an NFL Player.
26 As a direct result of Danney’s interference with Liuget’s contractual relations with the
27
Chargers, Liuget suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
28 12
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Relations)
2
3
4 Danney knew that Liuget had a multi-year contract with the Chargers and also was
5 receiving income for engaging in certain endorsement and sponsorship opportunities.

6 Danney’s intentional act of administering a Prohibited Substance to Liuget was the
7
proximate cause of Liuget unintentionally violating the Policy, which disrupted Liuget’s
8
relationship with the Chargers and resulted in, among other things, a four-game suspension and
9
the Chargers forcing Liuget to renegotiate his contract for a substantially smaller salary.
10
11 Danney’s intentional act of administering a Prohibited Substance to Liuget was the
12 proximate cause of Liuget losing endorsement opportunities and which disrupted Liuget’s
13 relationship with certain commercial ventures.
14 Danney knew or should have known that his conduct was certain or substantially certain
15
to interfere with Liuget’s prospective economic relations.
16
As a direct result of Danney’s interference with Liuget’s prospective economic relations
17
with the Chargers, Liuget suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
18
19 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
20
21
Danney intentionally administered a Prohibited Substance to Liuget without Liuget’s
22
23 knowledge or consent. Danney’s extreme and outrageous conduct proximately caused Liuget to
24 suffer severe mental and emotional distress, as well as public humiliation and shame.
25 Danney intentionally administered a prescription medication to Liuget without Liuget’s
26 knowledge or consent. Danney’s extreme and outrageous conduct proximately caused Liuget to
27
suffer severe mental and emotional distress.
28 13
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 Danney acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing Liuget to suffer severe
2 emotional distress.
3
As a result of Danney’s extreme and outrageous conduct, Liuget suffered damages in an
4
amount to be determined at trial.
5
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6 (Negligence)
7
8
Danney had a duty to provide Liuget with treatment that was safe and that would not harm
9
or jeopardize his professional football career. Danney breached the standard of care by
10
11 administering a Prohibited Substance to Liuget without Liuget’s knowledge or consent.
12 It was foreseeable that Danney’s conduct would harm Liuget and jeopardize his
13 professional football career.

14 As a result of Danney’s negligence in administering treatment to Liuget, Liuget suffered
15
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
16
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 (Negligent Misrepresentation)
19
Danney represented to Liuget that the treatment he was giving Liuget, including the
20
injection of an over-the-counter anti-inflammatory, was safe and appropriate for Liuget’s
21
professional duties and responsibilities.
22
23 Danney intended that Liuget would rely on his representations and but for Danney’s
24 representations Liuget would not have accepted any treatment from or with Danney.
25 Liuget reasonably relied on Danney’s representations, which were false.
26
27
28 14
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 Danney harmed Liuget by administering a Prohibited Substance to Liuget which resulted

2 in, among other things, Liuget unintentionally violating the Policy and receiving a four-game
3
suspension.
4
Danney harmed Liuget by administering a prescribed medicine to Liuget without Liuget’s
5
knowledge or consent.
6
7 As a direct result of Danney’s negligent misrepresentations, Liuget suffered damages in an
8 amount to be determined at trial.

9 TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Relations)
10
12 Danney knew or should have known that Liuget had a multiyear contract with the
13 Chargers that provides an ongoing economic benefit to Liuget. Danney also knew or should have
14 known that Liuget’s relationship with the Chargers would be disrupted if Danney failed to act
15
with reasonable care.
16
Danney, without Liuget’s knowledge or consent, failed to act with reasonable care when
17
he administered a Prohibited Substance to Liuget.
18
19 Danney, through his negligent conduct, disrupted and jeopardized Liuget’s relationship
20 with the Chargers, resulting in, among other things, a four-game suspension and the Chargers
21 forcing Liuget to renegotiate his contract for substantially less compensation.
22 Danney’s wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in harming Liuget and damaging his
23
prospective economic relations with the Chargers and with certain business who provided and
24
otherwise offered endorsement and sponsorship opportunities.
25
As a direct result of Danney’s negligent interference with Liuget’s prospective economic
26
27 relations, Liuget suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
28 15
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Prohibited Substance)
2
3
4 As a personal trainer, Danney owed a fiduciary duty to Liuget to act with the utmost good
5 faith, to provide Liuget with treatment that was safe and that would not harm him or jeopardize
6 his professional football career, and to exercise the reasonable level of skill, prudence and
7
diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise.
8
Danney breached his fiduciary duty to Liuget by administering a Prohibited Substance to
9
Liuget without Liuget’s knowledge or consent.
10
11 Danney failed to act as a reasonably careful personal trainer would have acted under the
12 same or similar circumstances.

13 Danney caused harm to Liuget. It was foreseeable that Danney’s actions would result in
14 harm to Liuget.
15
As a direct result of Danney’s conduct, Liuget suffered damages in an amount to be
16
17
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Prescription Medication)
19
20
As a personal trainer, Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to Liuget to act with the utmost
21
good faith, to provide Liuget with treatment that was safe and that would not harm him or
22
23 jeopardize his professional football career, and to exercise a reasonable level of skill, prudence
24 and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise.
25 Danney breached his fiduciary duty to Liuget by administering a prescription medication
26 to Liuget without being licensed to do so and without Liuget’s knowledge or consent.
27
28 16
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 Danney failed to act as a reasonably careful personal trainer would have acted under the
2 same or similar circumstances.
3
Danney caused harm to Liuget. It was foreseeable that this would result in harm to
4
Liuget.
5
As a direct result of Danney’s conduct, Liuget suffered damages in an amount to be
6
7 determined at trial.
8 FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Failure to Obtain Informed Consent)
9
10
11 Danney administered a Prohibited Substance to Liuget without disclosing the potential
12 risks of doing so, including the likelihood of Liuget testing positive for a Prohibited Substance
13 and suffering injuries as a result.
14 Danney was obligated to explain those potential risks to Liuget but failed to satisfy that
15
duty and obligation. A reasonable person in Liuget’s position would not have agreed to the
16
administration of a Prohibited Substance if he had been adequately informed.
17
As a direct result of Danney’s failure to obtain Liuget’s informed consent, Liuget suffered
18
19 damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
20 SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract)
21
22
23 Danney and Liuget were bound by an oral contract whereby Danney would perform
24 training services to Liuget, including providing treatment to help Liuget cope with the physical
25 demands of playing in the NFL in a manner that was safe and lawful.
26 Liuget performed his contractual obligation to pay Danney for the training services set
27
forth in the contract.
28 17
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1
1 Danney breached his contract with Liuget by administering a Prohibited Substance to

2 Liuget without Liuget’s knowledge or consent.
3
As a direct result of Danney’s breach of contract, Liuget suffered damages in an amount
4
to be determined at trial.
5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6
Liuget demands a trial by jury on all issues triable as a matter of right.
7
8 Liuget respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Liuget’s favor, granting the
9 following relief:
10 a. An award sufficient to compensate Liuget for the damages caused by
11
Danney’s actions, in an amount no less than $15 million;
12
b. An award of punitive damages allowed by law;
13
c. Appropriate attorney’s fees and costs; and
14
15 d. Such other relief as the Court finds just and proper.
16
17 DATED: September 18, 2018 ROBINSON, BROG, LEINWAND,
GREENE, GENOVESE & GLUCK P.C.
18
19
By: Peter R. Ginsberg
20 Attorneys for Plaintiff
21
22 BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
23
24
By: /s/ Barry A. Smith
25 BARRY A. SMITH
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26
27
28 18
BUCHALTER
LOS ANG ELES
BN 34072344v1

Corey Liuget v. Ian Danney, Et Al.

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Corey Liuget v. Ian Danney, Et Al.

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 8:18-cv-01683 Document 1 Filed 09/18/18 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1

1 Robinson, Brog, Leinwand, Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C.

1 NATURE OF THE ACTION

8 16 Sample”) to collectors acting on behalf of the NFL.

8 of the 2011 NFL Draft.

1 The Chargers Renegotiate Liuget’s Contract

1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13 substantial factor in causing Liuget’s harm.

1 As a direct result of Danney’s intentional misrepresentations, Liuget suffered damages in

1 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5 receiving income for engaging in certain endorsement and sponsorship opportunities.

13 professional football career.

1 Danney harmed Liuget by administering a Prohibited Substance to Liuget which resulted

8 amount to be determined at trial.

1 THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12 same or similar circumstances.

1 Danney breached his contract with Liuget by administering a Prohibited Substance to

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen