Preview
Jordan Susman, Esq. (SBN 246116)
1 Margo Arnold, Esq. (SBN 278288)
NOLAN HEIMANN LLP
2 16000 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 1200
Encino, California 91423
3 Telephone: (818) 574-5710
E-mail:jsusman@nolanheimann.com
4 marnold@nolanheimann.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
xxxxx xxxxxx
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
10 xxxxx xxxxxx, an individual, ) Case No.: 20-CIV-03890
)
11 Plaintiff, )
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
12 vs. )
) (1) CIVIL HARASSMENT
13 xxxxx xxxx, an individual, )
) (2) DEFAMATION
14 Defendant. )
) (3) FALSE PERSONATION (PEN.
15 ) CODE § 528.5)
)
16 ) (4) VIOLATION OF THE
) COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER
17 ) DATA AND ACCESS FRAUD ACT
) (PEN. CODE § 502 ET SEQ.)
18 )
) (5) CONVERSION
19 )
) (6) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
20 ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
)
21 )
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx (“Dr. xxxxxx”), by and through his undersigned attorneys, alleges upon
2 knowledge as to himself and his own acts and alleges upon information and belief as to all other matters,
3 brings this Complaint:
4 THE PARTIES
5 1. Plaintiff Dr. xxxxxx, an individual, is a resident of San Mateo County, California.
6 2. Defendant xxxxx xxxx (“Defendant”), an individual, is a resident of Cleveland, Ohio.
7 PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant harassed Dr.
9 xxxxxx while he resided in California and impugned Dr. xxxxxx’s medical career which is centered in
10 California. The brunt of the harm, in terms both of Dr. xxxxxx’s emotional distress and the injury to his
11 professional reputation, was suffered in California. In addition, several of Defendant’s acts of
12 harassment included sending defamatory letters to medical professionals at Stanford University.
13 4. Venue is proper in this county because Dr. xxxxxx is a resident of San Mateo County, and
14 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims pleaded herein occurred in this
15 County.
16 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
17 5. Dr. xxxxxx is currently a clinical scholar in the Ophthalmology Department at Stanford
18 University. Previously, Dr. xxxxxx was a physician at the Johns Hopkins University Hospital where he
19 worked at the Wilmer Eye Institute as a senior resident physician in ophthalmology.
20 6. Dr. xxxxxx initially met Defendant through the online dating mobile application Bumble
21 in May 2019. In June and July 2019, Dr. xxxxxx and Defendant briefly dated.
22 7. In November 2019, Bumble disabled Dr. xxxxxx’s account, purportedly for violating its
23 terms. The following month, December 2019, attacks on Dr. xxxxxx’s online presence escalated:
24 • Instagram disabled Dr. xxxxxx’s account purportedly for violation of its community
25 terms;
26 • Facebook disabled Dr. xxxxxx’s account because he was purportedly deceased;
27 • Someone logged into Dr. xxxxxx’s Netflix account from Nevada;
28 • Dr. xxxxxx’s LinkedIn account was disabled as someone reported him deceased;
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 • Dr. xxxxxx received an email from Bank of America informing him that his bank account
2 was locked due to numerous password attempts;
3 • Dr. xxxxxx’s Venmo account ceased working because he was reported as deceased.
4 Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing attacks on
5 his online presence.
6 8. On December 23, 2019, the Wilmer Eye Institute Patient Relations received an email
7 from clndiscovery@gmail.com claiming to be a patient named “Caroline N.”, reporting that Dr. xxxxxx
8 was very rude as a physician. The same day, Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Dr. xxxxxx’s future supervisor at
9 Stanford, received an email from clndiscovery@gmail.com, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx cheated on a test in
10 college. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing
11 emails.
12 9. On January 25, 2020, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute, Dr. Thomas
13 Johnson, received an email from Reportsafety39@gmail.com, in which the sender claimed to be a work
14 colleague of Dr. xxxxxx’s and alleged that Dr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk recently. Dr.
15 xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing email.
16 10. On January 25, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a notice from Google, stating that someone
17 was trying to close his Gmail account because Dr. xxxxxx was purportedly deceased. Dr. xxxxxx is
18 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing act.
19 11. On January 31, 2020, one of the Retina Fellow physicians at Duke University Medical
20 School, Dr. Frank Brodie, received a physical letter to his home address, purportedly from Johns
21 Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations by
22 entering medical charts of supervisors and peers, and that Dr. xxxxxx had also been involved in drug use
23 and was currently in a remediation program. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was
24 responsible for sending the letter.
25 12. On February 3, 2020, Dr. Huy Nguyen and Dr. Natalia Callaway, both vitreoretinal
26 fellows at Stanford University, and Dr. Malini Veerappan, an ophthalmology resident at Stanford
27 University applying into retina, and Dr. Carolyn Pan, a vitreoretinal surgeon from Stanford University,
28 received physical letters, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and
2 believes that Defendant was responsible for sending these letters.
3 13. On February 3, 2020, Dr. Fasika Woreta, Dr. xxxxxx’s program director and direct
4 supervisor at Johns Hopkins University, also received a physical letter, purportedly from a work
5 colleague of Dr. xxxxxx’s that Dr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk recently. Dr. xxxxxx is
6 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
7 14. On February 5, 2020, Dr. Michael Ammar, a vitreoretinal fellow at the Wills Eye
8 Hospital in Philadelphia also received a physical letter, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer
9 Chris Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug
10 use. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
11 15. On February 6, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a package in the mail at his home address that
12 was filled with feces. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending
13 the feces.
14 16. On February 7, 2020, Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the Dean of Graduate Medical Education at
15 Johns Hopkins University, received a physical letter, from someone claiming to be a medical student
16 who worked with Dr. xxxxxx, stating that Dr. xxxxxx was demeaning. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and
17 believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
18 17. On or about February 7, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a phone call from Ashford University,
19 an online university, because someone provided it with his cell number and claimed Dr. xxxxxx was
20 interested in Ashford’s online courses. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was
21 responsible for the foregoing.
22 18. On February 8, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a phone call from WeBuyandSellTimeshares
23 because someone provided it with Dr. xxxxxx’s cell number and claimed Dr. xxxxxx was interested in its
24 products. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for foregoing.
25 19. On February 8, 2020, Dr. Durga Borkar, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Duke University,
26 received a physical letter at her home address, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris
27 Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr.
28 xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 20. On February 14, 2020, Dr. Cindy Cai, a vitreoretinal fellow at Duke University, received
2 a physical letter at her home address, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan,
3 alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is
4 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
5 21. On February 15, 2020, at approximately 11:40 p.m., Defendant came to Dr. xxxxxx’s
6 apartment building. Because she did not have a key, Defendant loitered in front of the main entrance for
7 approximately 25 minutes, until she was let in by a resident who was walking out.
8 22. At 12:06 a.m. on February 16, 2020, Defendant attempted to use the elevator in Dr.
9 xxxxxx’s apartment building, but was unable to do so, because the elevator requires a security fob.
10 Defendant then loitered in the lobby for approximately 15 minutes, until a resident used his fob to give
11 Defendant access to the elevator to Dr. xxxxxx’s floor. Defendant then approached Dr. xxxxxx’s
12 apartment, attempted to open the door, and, upon realizing it was locked, banged repeatedly on the door
13 and called Dr. xxxxxx three times.
14 23. Dr. xxxxxx called security, who escorted Defendant out of the building and told her to
15 leave the premises. Defendant attempted to re-enter the building through another entrance using the
16 parking garage elevator. At this time, a police officer was already at Dr. xxxxxx’s apartment taking his
17 statement when he was notified the Defendant had tried to enter the building again. The officer went to
18 question Defendant at which point she provided the police with a false name and identity.
19 24. On February 27, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx obtained a Temporary Protective Order from the
20 District Court of Maryland, Baltimore City. Defendant, however, moved from Baltimore to Cleveland,
21 in order to evade service, and the TPO expired on August 27, 2020, despite several attempts of service
22 by the local sheriff.
23 25. Notwithstanding, Defendant’s harassment and defamation of Dr. xxxxxx continued
24 unabated.
25 26. In or about May 2020, Defendant published private information about Dr. xxxxxx on
26 Craigslist, including his phone number and email address. In addition, Defendant contacted funeral
27 homes, doctors’ offices, universities, pest control companies, mold remediation companies, banks, and
28 insurance companies, pretending to be Dr. xxxxxx and inquiring about their services. Consequently, Dr.
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 xxxxxx received dozens of unwanted phone calls and emails from strangers, responding to Defendant’s
2 fraudulent inquiries.
3 27. Also, in or about May 2020, Defendant purchased a life insurance policy in Dr. xxxxxx’s
4 name, with Dr. xxxxxx’s mother named as the beneficiary.
5 28. On June 17, 2020, counsel for Dr. xxxxxx sent Defendant a Cease and Desist letter and a
6 copy of the TPO, the receipt of which was acknowledged by counsel for Defendant. Although counsel
7 for Defendant represented that Defendant would comply with the demands in the Cease and Desist
8 letter, Defendant, in fact, failed to do so.
9 29. At first, Defendant limited her harassment of Defendant to attacking his friends and
10 colleagues, including
11 a. July 4 and August 30, 2020: Defendant reported to Instagram that a close friend of Dr.
12 xxxxxx’s was deceased in order to close their account;
13 b. Beginning in June 2020: Defendant began posting 1-star reviews online of Dr. xxxxxx’s
14 program director and direct supervisor at Johns Hopkins University on multiple websites.
15 30. Defendant soon directed her harassment back to Dr. xxxxxx, including:
16 a. August 20, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Hinge to ban Dr. xxxxxx for
17 purportedly violating its terms of service;
18 b. August 24, 2020: Defendant sent a pseudonymous email communication under the name
19 “Katie Ward,” to the online dating site Coffee Meets Bagel alleging that Dr. xxxxxx
20 sexually assaulted “Katie Ward.” In addition, Defendant sent to Coffee Meets Bagel a
21 fraudulent police report in which she described the purported sexual assault;
22 c. August 26, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Bumble to ban Dr. xxxxxx for
23 purportedly violating its terms of service.
24 31. During the pendency of this this action, Defendant’s harassment has continued,
25 including:
26 a. April 28, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx’s father on
27 HealthGrades;
28
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 b. November 21, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx’s sister on
2 HealthGrades;
3 c. December 20, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx on WebMD, as
4 well eight other one-star reviews;
5 d. December 29, 2021: Defendant again caused the online dating site Hinge to ban Dr.
6 xxxxxx;
7 e. February 22, 2022: Defendant posted a false and defamatory one-star review on
8 HealthGrades regarding Dr. xxxxxx;
9 f. March 1, 2022: Defendant posted a false and defamatory one-star review on
10 HealthGrades regarding Dr. xxxxxx.
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12 (Civil Harassment)
13 32. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
14 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
15 33. As described herein, Defendant has engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which
16 was to alarm and/or harass Dr. xxxxxx.
17 34. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has reasonably feared for his safety,
18 35. As part of Defendant’s pattern of conduct, she made a credible threat with the intent to
19 place Dr. xxxxxx in reasonable fear for his safety.
20 36. Although Dr. xxxxxx clearly and definitively demanded that Defendant cease and abate
21 her pattern of conduct, Defendant persisted in her pattern of conduct.
22 37. In addition, Defendant violated a legally valid restraining order, the existence of which
23 she was aware of and acknowledged in writing.
24 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered
25 general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
26 39. As described herein, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx’s
27 rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.
28
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 40. Unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, Defendant will continue to harass Dr.
2 xxxxxx. By reason of the foregoing, Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctions
3 enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all persons acting in concert with her, from directly or
4 indirectly contacting Dr. xxxxxx, impersonating Dr. xxxxxx, and/or harassing or stalking Dr. xxxxxx.
5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Defamation)
7 41. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
8 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
9 42. As described herein, Defendant falsely alleged that Dr. xxxxxx sexually assaulted a
10 woman named “Katie Ward” and sent to letters containing false statements of fact to the Wilmer Eye
11 Institute Patient Relations at John Hopkins University; Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Dr. xxxxxx’s future
12 supervisor at Stanford University; Dr. Thomas Johnson, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute;
13 Dr. Frank Brodie, a Retina Fellow physician at Duke University Medical School; Dr. Huy Nguyen and
14 Dr. Natalia Callaway, both vitreoretinal fellows at Stanford University; Dr. Malini Veerappan, an
15 ophthalmology resident at Stanford University applying into retina; Dr. Carolyn Pan, a vitreoretinal
16 surgeon at Stanford University; Dr. Fasika Woreta, Dr. xxxxxx’s program director and direct supervisor
17 at Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Michael Ammar, a vitreoretinal fellow at the Wills Eye Hospital in
18 Philadelphia; Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the Dean of Graduate Medical Education and Johns Hopkins
19 University; Dr. Durga Borkar, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Duke University; Dr. Cindy Cai, a vitreoretinal
20 fellow at Duke University; and the dating websites Hinge and Coffee Meets Bagel.
21 43. The false statements of fact included inter alia:
22 a. Dr. xxxxxx is rude as a physician and demeaning to patients;
23 b. Dr. xxxxxx cheated on a test in college;
24 c. Dr. xxxxxx showed up at work intoxicated;
25 d. Dr. xxxxxx violated HIPAA regulations by entering medical charts of supervisors and
26 peers;
27 e. Dr. xxxxxx was previously involved in drug use and was currently in a remediation
28 program;
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 f. Dr. xxxxxx posed a physical threat to the safety of women on the dating sites Hinge and
2 Coffee Meets Bagel.
3 44. The statements in the foregoing paragraphs, which are referred to collectively herein as
4 the “False Statements,” are unprivileged, false, and defamatory. The False Statements are of and
5 concerning Dr. xxxxxx.
6 45. The False Statements were made with actual malice in that they were made with
7 knowledge of their falsity and/or in reckless disregard for the truth.
8 46. The False Statements exposed Dr. xxxxxx to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy
9 and/or harmed Dr. xxxxxx in his trade or profession.
10 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered
11 general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
12 48. In creating and disseminating the False Statements, Defendant acted with malice or
13 reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx’s rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.
14 49. Unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, Defendant will republish, repeat and
15 continue to disseminate the False Statements to the continuing injury of Dr. xxxxxx. Such continued
16 republication, repetition, and dissemination of the False Statements will cause irreparable harm to Dr.
17 xxxxxx. Dr. xxxxxx lacks an adequate remedy at law insofar as damages will be very difficult to
18 calculate for such on-going injuries. By reason of the foregoing, Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to preliminary
19 and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all persons acting in concert with
20 her, from republishing, repeating, distributing or otherwise disseminating the False Statements set forth
21 herein.
22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (False Personation (Pen. Code §§ 528.5))
24 50. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
25 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
26 51. Between December 11, 2019 and January 2, 2020, Defendant falsely impersonated Dr.
27 xxxxxx’s sister in correspondence with representatives of PayPal.
28
9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 52. While falsely impersonating Dr. xxxxxx’s sister, Defendant delivered to PayPal a
2 fraudulent death certificate she created that purported Dr. xxxxxx to be deceased.
3 53. Defendant’s impersonation was credible, as PayPal believed that Defendant was Dr.
4 xxxxxx’s sister. As a result of Defendant’s false impersonation, and at Defendant’s request, PayPal
5 closed Dr. xxxxxx’s account and transferred all money in his account to the state.
6 54. Defendant knowingly and without consent, credibly impersonated Dr. xxxxxx’s sister by
7 electronic means for purposes of harming Dr. xxxxxx.
8 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered general
9 and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
10 56. As described herein, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx’s
11 rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.
12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Violation of Comprehensive Computer Data and Access Fraud Act (Pen. Code § 502(c), (e)(1)))
14 57. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
15 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
16 58. Defendant knowingly accessed and without permission used data, computer, computer
17 system, and/or a computer network in order to execute a scheme to defraud, deceive, and wrongfully
18 control money, property, and/or data.
19 59. Defendant knowingly and without permission used the profile of another individual,
20 corporation, and/or entity in connection with the sending of one or more electronic mail messages and
21 thereby damaged or caused damage to computer data.
22 60. Dr. xxxxxx was harmed as a result of Defendant’s conduct, and Defendant’s conduct was
23 a substantial factor in causing Defendant’s harm.
24 61. As described herein, Defendant acted with fraud, malice or reckless disregard for Dr.
25 xxxxxx’s rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.
26 //
27 //
28 //
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Conversion)
3 62. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
4 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
5 63. At all relevant times, Dr. xxxxxx had ownership rights in, or the right to possess, money
6 in his PayPal account. This is a specific sum capable of identification through an accounting of Dr.
7 xxxxxx’s PayPal account.
8 64. Defendant wrongfully exercised dominion over money in Dr. xxxxxx’s PayPal account.
9 65. Defendant intentionally and substantially interfered with Dr. xxxxxx’s rights by
10 contacting PayPal under the guise of being Dr. xxxxxx’s sister, reporting Dr. xxxxxx dead, and
11 requesting that Dr. xxxxxx’s money be transferred to the state.
12 66. Dr. xxxxxx did not consent to Defendant’s actions as described above
13 67. Dr. xxxxxx suffered harm through Defendant’s actions.
14 68. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. xxxxxx’s harm.
15 69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as above-described, Dr. xxxxxx
16 has been damaged in a sum which is presently unascertained. Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to actual damages
17 sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts, including sums sufficient to compensate Dr. xxxxxx
18 for all harm suffered as a result of Defendants’ conduct, and punitive damages.
19 70. In committing the acts alleged, Defendant acted with full knowledge of, and with reckless
20 disregard for, the consequences and damages inflicted upon Dr. xxxxxx, and Defendant’s conduct was
21 willful, oppressive and malicious, such as to entitle Dr. xxxxxx an award of punitive damages in an
22 amount to punish Defendant and deter Defendant and to serve as an example to others similarly situated.
23 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
25 71. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
26 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
27 72. Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein is extreme and outrageous and is beyond the
28 bounds of that tolerated in a decent society.
11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 73. Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to cause Dr. xxxxxx
2 severe emotional distress, or at a minimum, with reckless disregard as to whether it would cause severe
3 emotional distress.
4 74. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered severe emotional distress.
5 75. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. xxxxxx’s severe emotional
6 distress.
7 76. Defendant’s actions alleged herein were done with malice, fraud, oppression, and in
8 reckless disregard of Dr. xxxxxx’s rights.
9 77. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has incurred and will continue to incur
10 damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
11
12 WHEREFORE, Dr. xxxxxx prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
13 1. For general and special damages according to proof, including inter alia compensation
14 for the time and money expended in pursuit of property converted by Defendant;
15 2. For punitive damages against Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish or set an
16 example of Defendant and to deter such conduct in the future, the exact amount of such
17 damages subject to proof at the time of trial;
18 3. For reasonable attorney’s fees;
19 4. For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all
20 persons acting in concert with her, from directly or indirectly contacting Dr. xxxxxx,
21 impersonating Dr. xxxxxx or any other member of his family, and/or harassing or stalking
22 Dr. xxxxxx;
23 5. For preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining and enjoining Defendant, and all
24 persons acting in concert with her, from republishing, repeating, distributing, or
25 otherwise disseminating the False Statements set forth herein;
26 6. For all costs of suit incurred herein;
27 7. For interest at the maximum legal rate; and
28
12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper.
2
3 Dated: March 8, 2022 NOLAN HEIMANN, LLP
4
By: _______________________________
5 Jordan Susman
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 xxxxx xxxxxx
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
2
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed
3 in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 16000 Ventura Blvd. Ste.
1200, Encino, CA 91436.
4
On May 12, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: FIRST
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT
6
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Based upon an agreement of the parties by e-mail or electronic
7 service, I enclosed the document to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed. I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
8 transmission was unsuccessful.
9
10
Anthony J. Calero, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant xxxxx xxxx
11 Law Offices of Travis H. Whitfield, Inc.
2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 138
12 San Jose, CA 95131
acalero3000@gmail.com
13
14
15
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
17
Executed on May 12, 2022 at Encino, California.
18
19
JORDAN SUSMAN
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Preview
Jordan Susman, Esq. (SBN 246116) 1 Margo Arnold, Esq. (SBN 278288) NOLAN HEIMANN LLP 2 16000 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 1200 Encino, California 91423 3 Telephone: (818) 574-5710 E-mail:jsusman@nolanheimann.com 4 marnold@nolanheimann.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 xxxxx xxxxxx, an individual, ) Case No.: 20-CIV-03890 ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 12 vs. ) ) (1) CIVIL HARASSMENT 13 xxxxx xxxx, an individual, ) ) (2) DEFAMATION 14 Defendant. ) ) (3) FALSE PERSONATION (PEN. 15 ) CODE § 528.5) ) 16 ) (4) VIOLATION OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER 17 ) DATA AND ACCESS FRAUD ACT ) (PEN. CODE § 502 ET SEQ.) 18 ) ) (5) CONVERSION 19 ) ) (6) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 20 ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ) 21 ) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx (“Dr. xxxxxx”), by and through his undersigned attorneys, alleges upon 2 knowledge as to himself and his own acts and alleges upon information and belief as to all other matters, 3 brings this Complaint: 4 THE PARTIES 5 1. Plaintiff Dr. xxxxxx, an individual, is a resident of San Mateo County, California. 6 2. Defendant xxxxx xxxx (“Defendant”), an individual, is a resident of Cleveland, Ohio. 7 PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant harassed Dr. 9 xxxxxx while he resided in California and impugned Dr. xxxxxx’s medical career which is centered in 10 California. The brunt of the harm, in terms both of Dr. xxxxxx’s emotional distress and the injury to his 11 professional reputation, was suffered in California. In addition, several of Defendant’s acts of 12 harassment included sending defamatory letters to medical professionals at Stanford University. 13 4. Venue is proper in this county because Dr. xxxxxx is a resident of San Mateo County, and 14 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims pleaded herein occurred in this 15 County. 16 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 17 5. Dr. xxxxxx is currently a clinical scholar in the Ophthalmology Department at Stanford 18 University. Previously, Dr. xxxxxx was a physician at the Johns Hopkins University Hospital where he 19 worked at the Wilmer Eye Institute as a senior resident physician in ophthalmology. 20 6. Dr. xxxxxx initially met Defendant through the online dating mobile application Bumble 21 in May 2019. In June and July 2019, Dr. xxxxxx and Defendant briefly dated. 22 7. In November 2019, Bumble disabled Dr. xxxxxx’s account, purportedly for violating its 23 terms. The following month, December 2019, attacks on Dr. xxxxxx’s online presence escalated: 24 • Instagram disabled Dr. xxxxxx’s account purportedly for violation of its community 25 terms; 26 • Facebook disabled Dr. xxxxxx’s account because he was purportedly deceased; 27 • Someone logged into Dr. xxxxxx’s Netflix account from Nevada; 28 • Dr. xxxxxx’s LinkedIn account was disabled as someone reported him deceased; 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 • Dr. xxxxxx received an email from Bank of America informing him that his bank account 2 was locked due to numerous password attempts; 3 • Dr. xxxxxx’s Venmo account ceased working because he was reported as deceased. 4 Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing attacks on 5 his online presence. 6 8. On December 23, 2019, the Wilmer Eye Institute Patient Relations received an email 7 from clndiscovery@gmail.com claiming to be a patient named “Caroline N.”, reporting that Dr. xxxxxx 8 was very rude as a physician. The same day, Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Dr. xxxxxx’s future supervisor at 9 Stanford, received an email from clndiscovery@gmail.com, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx cheated on a test in 10 college. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing 11 emails. 12 9. On January 25, 2020, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute, Dr. Thomas 13 Johnson, received an email from Reportsafety39@gmail.com, in which the sender claimed to be a work 14 colleague of Dr. xxxxxx’s and alleged that Dr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk recently. Dr. 15 xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing email. 16 10. On January 25, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a notice from Google, stating that someone 17 was trying to close his Gmail account because Dr. xxxxxx was purportedly deceased. Dr. xxxxxx is 18 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing act. 19 11. On January 31, 2020, one of the Retina Fellow physicians at Duke University Medical 20 School, Dr. Frank Brodie, received a physical letter to his home address, purportedly from Johns 21 Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations by 22 entering medical charts of supervisors and peers, and that Dr. xxxxxx had also been involved in drug use 23 and was currently in a remediation program. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was 24 responsible for sending the letter. 25 12. On February 3, 2020, Dr. Huy Nguyen and Dr. Natalia Callaway, both vitreoretinal 26 fellows at Stanford University, and Dr. Malini Veerappan, an ophthalmology resident at Stanford 27 University applying into retina, and Dr. Carolyn Pan, a vitreoretinal surgeon from Stanford University, 28 received physical letters, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and 2 believes that Defendant was responsible for sending these letters. 3 13. On February 3, 2020, Dr. Fasika Woreta, Dr. xxxxxx’s program director and direct 4 supervisor at Johns Hopkins University, also received a physical letter, purportedly from a work 5 colleague of Dr. xxxxxx’s that Dr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk recently. Dr. xxxxxx is 6 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 7 14. On February 5, 2020, Dr. Michael Ammar, a vitreoretinal fellow at the Wills Eye 8 Hospital in Philadelphia also received a physical letter, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer 9 Chris Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug 10 use. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 11 15. On February 6, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a package in the mail at his home address that 12 was filled with feces. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending 13 the feces. 14 16. On February 7, 2020, Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the Dean of Graduate Medical Education at 15 Johns Hopkins University, received a physical letter, from someone claiming to be a medical student 16 who worked with Dr. xxxxxx, stating that Dr. xxxxxx was demeaning. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and 17 believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 18 17. On or about February 7, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a phone call from Ashford University, 19 an online university, because someone provided it with his cell number and claimed Dr. xxxxxx was 20 interested in Ashford’s online courses. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was 21 responsible for the foregoing. 22 18. On February 8, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a phone call from WeBuyandSellTimeshares 23 because someone provided it with Dr. xxxxxx’s cell number and claimed Dr. xxxxxx was interested in its 24 products. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for foregoing. 25 19. On February 8, 2020, Dr. Durga Borkar, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Duke University, 26 received a physical letter at her home address, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris 27 Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. 28 xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 20. On February 14, 2020, Dr. Cindy Cai, a vitreoretinal fellow at Duke University, received 2 a physical letter at her home address, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, 3 alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is 4 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 5 21. On February 15, 2020, at approximately 11:40 p.m., Defendant came to Dr. xxxxxx’s 6 apartment building. Because she did not have a key, Defendant loitered in front of the main entrance for 7 approximately 25 minutes, until she was let in by a resident who was walking out. 8 22. At 12:06 a.m. on February 16, 2020, Defendant attempted to use the elevator in Dr. 9 xxxxxx’s apartment building, but was unable to do so, because the elevator requires a security fob. 10 Defendant then loitered in the lobby for approximately 15 minutes, until a resident used his fob to give 11 Defendant access to the elevator to Dr. xxxxxx’s floor. Defendant then approached Dr. xxxxxx’s 12 apartment, attempted to open the door, and, upon realizing it was locked, banged repeatedly on the door 13 and called Dr. xxxxxx three times. 14 23. Dr. xxxxxx called security, who escorted Defendant out of the building and told her to 15 leave the premises. Defendant attempted to re-enter the building through another entrance using the 16 parking garage elevator. At this time, a police officer was already at Dr. xxxxxx’s apartment taking his 17 statement when he was notified the Defendant had tried to enter the building again. The officer went to 18 question Defendant at which point she provided the police with a false name and identity. 19 24. On February 27, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx obtained a Temporary Protective Order from the 20 District Court of Maryland, Baltimore City. Defendant, however, moved from Baltimore to Cleveland, 21 in order to evade service, and the TPO expired on August 27, 2020, despite several attempts of service 22 by the local sheriff. 23 25. Notwithstanding, Defendant’s harassment and defamation of Dr. xxxxxx continued 24 unabated. 25 26. In or about May 2020, Defendant published private information about Dr. xxxxxx on 26 Craigslist, including his phone number and email address. In addition, Defendant contacted funeral 27 homes, doctors’ offices, universities, pest control companies, mold remediation companies, banks, and 28 insurance companies, pretending to be Dr. xxxxxx and inquiring about their services. Consequently, Dr. 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 xxxxxx received dozens of unwanted phone calls and emails from strangers, responding to Defendant’s 2 fraudulent inquiries. 3 27. Also, in or about May 2020, Defendant purchased a life insurance policy in Dr. xxxxxx’s 4 name, with Dr. xxxxxx’s mother named as the beneficiary. 5 28. On June 17, 2020, counsel for Dr. xxxxxx sent Defendant a Cease and Desist letter and a 6 copy of the TPO, the receipt of which was acknowledged by counsel for Defendant. Although counsel 7 for Defendant represented that Defendant would comply with the demands in the Cease and Desist 8 letter, Defendant, in fact, failed to do so. 9 29. At first, Defendant limited her harassment of Defendant to attacking his friends and 10 colleagues, including 11 a. July 4 and August 30, 2020: Defendant reported to Instagram that a close friend of Dr. 12 xxxxxx’s was deceased in order to close their account; 13 b. Beginning in June 2020: Defendant began posting 1-star reviews online of Dr. xxxxxx’s 14 program director and direct supervisor at Johns Hopkins University on multiple websites. 15 30. Defendant soon directed her harassment back to Dr. xxxxxx, including: 16 a. August 20, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Hinge to ban Dr. xxxxxx for 17 purportedly violating its terms of service; 18 b. August 24, 2020: Defendant sent a pseudonymous email communication under the name 19 “Katie Ward,” to the online dating site Coffee Meets Bagel alleging that Dr. xxxxxx 20 sexually assaulted “Katie Ward.” In addition, Defendant sent to Coffee Meets Bagel a 21 fraudulent police report in which she described the purported sexual assault; 22 c. August 26, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Bumble to ban Dr. xxxxxx for 23 purportedly violating its terms of service. 24 31. During the pendency of this this action, Defendant’s harassment has continued, 25 including: 26 a. April 28, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx’s father on 27 HealthGrades; 28 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 b. November 21, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx’s sister on 2 HealthGrades; 3 c. December 20, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx on WebMD, as 4 well eight other one-star reviews; 5 d. December 29, 2021: Defendant again caused the online dating site Hinge to ban Dr. 6 xxxxxx; 7 e. February 22, 2022: Defendant posted a false and defamatory one-star review on 8 HealthGrades regarding Dr. xxxxxx; 9 f. March 1, 2022: Defendant posted a false and defamatory one-star review on 10 HealthGrades regarding Dr. xxxxxx. 11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 12 (Civil Harassment) 13 32. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 14 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 15 33. As described herein, Defendant has engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which 16 was to alarm and/or harass Dr. xxxxxx. 17 34. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has reasonably feared for his safety, 18 35. As part of Defendant’s pattern of conduct, she made a credible threat with the intent to 19 place Dr. xxxxxx in reasonable fear for his safety. 20 36. Although Dr. xxxxxx clearly and definitively demanded that Defendant cease and abate 21 her pattern of conduct, Defendant persisted in her pattern of conduct. 22 37. In addition, Defendant violated a legally valid restraining order, the existence of which 23 she was aware of and acknowledged in writing. 24 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered 25 general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 26 39. As described herein, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx’s 27 rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages. 28 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 40. Unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, Defendant will continue to harass Dr. 2 xxxxxx. By reason of the foregoing, Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctions 3 enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all persons acting in concert with her, from directly or 4 indirectly contacting Dr. xxxxxx, impersonating Dr. xxxxxx, and/or harassing or stalking Dr. xxxxxx. 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Defamation) 7 41. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 8 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 9 42. As described herein, Defendant falsely alleged that Dr. xxxxxx sexually assaulted a 10 woman named “Katie Ward” and sent to letters containing false statements of fact to the Wilmer Eye 11 Institute Patient Relations at John Hopkins University; Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Dr. xxxxxx’s future 12 supervisor at Stanford University; Dr. Thomas Johnson, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute; 13 Dr. Frank Brodie, a Retina Fellow physician at Duke University Medical School; Dr. Huy Nguyen and 14 Dr. Natalia Callaway, both vitreoretinal fellows at Stanford University; Dr. Malini Veerappan, an 15 ophthalmology resident at Stanford University applying into retina; Dr. Carolyn Pan, a vitreoretinal 16 surgeon at Stanford University; Dr. Fasika Woreta, Dr. xxxxxx’s program director and direct supervisor 17 at Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Michael Ammar, a vitreoretinal fellow at the Wills Eye Hospital in 18 Philadelphia; Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the Dean of Graduate Medical Education and Johns Hopkins 19 University; Dr. Durga Borkar, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Duke University; Dr. Cindy Cai, a vitreoretinal 20 fellow at Duke University; and the dating websites Hinge and Coffee Meets Bagel. 21 43. The false statements of fact included inter alia: 22 a. Dr. xxxxxx is rude as a physician and demeaning to patients; 23 b. Dr. xxxxxx cheated on a test in college; 24 c. Dr. xxxxxx showed up at work intoxicated; 25 d. Dr. xxxxxx violated HIPAA regulations by entering medical charts of supervisors and 26 peers; 27 e. Dr. xxxxxx was previously involved in drug use and was currently in a remediation 28 program; 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 f. Dr. xxxxxx posed a physical threat to the safety of women on the dating sites Hinge and 2 Coffee Meets Bagel. 3 44. The statements in the foregoing paragraphs, which are referred to collectively herein as 4 the “False Statements,” are unprivileged, false, and defamatory. The False Statements are of and 5 concerning Dr. xxxxxx. 6 45. The False Statements were made with actual malice in that they were made with 7 knowledge of their falsity and/or in reckless disregard for the truth. 8 46. The False Statements exposed Dr. xxxxxx to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy 9 and/or harmed Dr. xxxxxx in his trade or profession. 10 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered 11 general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 12 48. In creating and disseminating the False Statements, Defendant acted with malice or 13 reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx’s rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages. 14 49. Unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, Defendant will republish, repeat and 15 continue to disseminate the False Statements to the continuing injury of Dr. xxxxxx. Such continued 16 republication, repetition, and dissemination of the False Statements will cause irreparable harm to Dr. 17 xxxxxx. Dr. xxxxxx lacks an adequate remedy at law insofar as damages will be very difficult to 18 calculate for such on-going injuries. By reason of the foregoing, Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to preliminary 19 and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all persons acting in concert with 20 her, from republishing, repeating, distributing or otherwise disseminating the False Statements set forth 21 herein. 22 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 23 (False Personation (Pen. Code §§ 528.5)) 24 50. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 25 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 26 51. Between December 11, 2019 and January 2, 2020, Defendant falsely impersonated Dr. 27 xxxxxx’s sister in correspondence with representatives of PayPal. 28 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 52. While falsely impersonating Dr. xxxxxx’s sister, Defendant delivered to PayPal a 2 fraudulent death certificate she created that purported Dr. xxxxxx to be deceased. 3 53. Defendant’s impersonation was credible, as PayPal believed that Defendant was Dr. 4 xxxxxx’s sister. As a result of Defendant’s false impersonation, and at Defendant’s request, PayPal 5 closed Dr. xxxxxx’s account and transferred all money in his account to the state. 6 54. Defendant knowingly and without consent, credibly impersonated Dr. xxxxxx’s sister by 7 electronic means for purposes of harming Dr. xxxxxx. 8 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered general 9 and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 10 56. As described herein, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx’s 11 rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages. 12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 (Violation of Comprehensive Computer Data and Access Fraud Act (Pen. Code § 502(c), (e)(1))) 14 57. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 15 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 16 58. Defendant knowingly accessed and without permission used data, computer, computer 17 system, and/or a computer network in order to execute a scheme to defraud, deceive, and wrongfully 18 control money, property, and/or data. 19 59. Defendant knowingly and without permission used the profile of another individual, 20 corporation, and/or entity in connection with the sending of one or more electronic mail messages and 21 thereby damaged or caused damage to computer data. 22 60. Dr. xxxxxx was harmed as a result of Defendant’s conduct, and Defendant’s conduct was 23 a substantial factor in causing Defendant’s harm. 24 61. As described herein, Defendant acted with fraud, malice or reckless disregard for Dr. 25 xxxxxx’s rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages. 26 // 27 // 28 // 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Conversion) 3 62. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 4 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 5 63. At all relevant times, Dr. xxxxxx had ownership rights in, or the right to possess, money 6 in his PayPal account. This is a specific sum capable of identification through an accounting of Dr. 7 xxxxxx’s PayPal account. 8 64. Defendant wrongfully exercised dominion over money in Dr. xxxxxx’s PayPal account. 9 65. Defendant intentionally and substantially interfered with Dr. xxxxxx’s rights by 10 contacting PayPal under the guise of being Dr. xxxxxx’s sister, reporting Dr. xxxxxx dead, and 11 requesting that Dr. xxxxxx’s money be transferred to the state. 12 66. Dr. xxxxxx did not consent to Defendant’s actions as described above 13 67. Dr. xxxxxx suffered harm through Defendant’s actions. 14 68. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. xxxxxx’s harm. 15 69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as above-described, Dr. xxxxxx 16 has been damaged in a sum which is presently unascertained. Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to actual damages 17 sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts, including sums sufficient to compensate Dr. xxxxxx 18 for all harm suffered as a result of Defendants’ conduct, and punitive damages. 19 70. In committing the acts alleged, Defendant acted with full knowledge of, and with reckless 20 disregard for, the consequences and damages inflicted upon Dr. xxxxxx, and Defendant’s conduct was 21 willful, oppressive and malicious, such as to entitle Dr. xxxxxx an award of punitive damages in an 22 amount to punish Defendant and deter Defendant and to serve as an example to others similarly situated. 23 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 24 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 25 71. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 26 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 27 72. Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein is extreme and outrageous and is beyond the 28 bounds of that tolerated in a decent society. 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 73. Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to cause Dr. xxxxxx 2 severe emotional distress, or at a minimum, with reckless disregard as to whether it would cause severe 3 emotional distress. 4 74. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered severe emotional distress. 5 75. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. xxxxxx’s severe emotional 6 distress. 7 76. Defendant’s actions alleged herein were done with malice, fraud, oppression, and in 8 reckless disregard of Dr. xxxxxx’s rights. 9 77. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has incurred and will continue to incur 10 damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 11 12 WHEREFORE, Dr. xxxxxx prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: 13 1. For general and special damages according to proof, including inter alia compensation 14 for the time and money expended in pursuit of property converted by Defendant; 15 2. For punitive damages against Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish or set an 16 example of Defendant and to deter such conduct in the future, the exact amount of such 17 damages subject to proof at the time of trial; 18 3. For reasonable attorney’s fees; 19 4. For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all 20 persons acting in concert with her, from directly or indirectly contacting Dr. xxxxxx, 21 impersonating Dr. xxxxxx or any other member of his family, and/or harassing or stalking 22 Dr. xxxxxx; 23 5. For preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining and enjoining Defendant, and all 24 persons acting in concert with her, from republishing, repeating, distributing, or 25 otherwise disseminating the False Statements set forth herein; 26 6. For all costs of suit incurred herein; 27 7. For interest at the maximum legal rate; and 28 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper. 2 3 Dated: March 8, 2022 NOLAN HEIMANN, LLP 4 By: _______________________________ 5 Jordan Susman Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 xxxxx xxxxxx 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 2 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed 3 in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 16000 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 1200, Encino, CA 91436. 4 On May 12, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: FIRST 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT 6 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Based upon an agreement of the parties by e-mail or electronic 7 service, I enclosed the document to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the 8 transmission was unsuccessful. 9 10 Anthony J. Calero, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant xxxxx xxxx 11 Law Offices of Travis H. Whitfield, Inc. 2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 138 12 San Jose, CA 95131 acalero3000@gmail.com 13 14 15 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 17 Executed on May 12, 2022 at Encino, California. 18 19 JORDAN SUSMAN 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28