arrow left
arrow right
  • POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
  • POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL CONTRACT/WARRANTY document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP ROBERT H. PLATT (SBN 108533) 2 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ELECTRONICALLY 3 Telephone: Facsimile: (310) 312-4000 (310) 312-4224 F I L E D Superior Court of California, 4 County of San Francisco KEVIN P. DWIGHT (SBN 239476) 06/29/2020 5 STEPHANIE A. ROESER (SBN 306343) Clerk of the Court 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor BY: RONNIE OTERO Deputy Clerk 6 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-7400 7 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 8 MICHAEL D. BRUNO (SBN 166805) GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 9 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 Telephone: (415) 875-3126 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants 12 POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. and MEYER CORPORATION, U.S. 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 15 POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC., a Case No. CGC-17-557774 16 California corporation and MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., a Delaware DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. DWIGHT IN 17 corporation, SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS POLYMATHIC 18 PROPERTIES, INC. AND MEYER Plaintiffs, CORPORATION, U.S.’S OPPOSITION TO 19 vs. DEFENDANT DEAN LUCA KRAUSE’S MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES 20 DEAN LUCA KRAUSE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, Filed concurrently with: 21 1. Opposition to Motion to Realign the Parties; Defendants. 22 Date: August 12, 2020 Time: 9:00 am 23 Dept.: 613 24 AND RELATED CROSS ACTION. 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. DWIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES OPPOSITION TO KRAUSE’S MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES 1 I, Kevin P. Dwight declare: 2 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California and am a partner at the law 3 firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Polymathic 4 Properties, Inc. (“PMP”) and Meyer Corporation, U.S. (“MUS”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the 5 above-entitled action. I submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant 6 and Cross-Complainant Dean Luca Krause’s Motion to Realign the Parties. All facts set forth in 7 the Declaration are based upon my personal knowledge, and, if called upon to testify as to the 8 truth of those facts, I could and would competently do so. 9 A. Procedural History. 10 2. On or about March 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint for Injunctive 11 Relief in this case against Defendants Dean Luca Krause, Cheuk Lin Chiu, and Does 1 through 12 25, 1 alleging causes of action for breach of the confidentiality agreement that Mr. Krause signed 13 upon beginning his employment, breach of fiduciary duty, and injunctive relief based on, inter 14 alia, Mr. Krause’s unlawful recording of his confidential and attorney-client privileged 15 conversations with Meyer employees. 16 3. I am informed and believe that, days later, on or about March 29, 2017, Plaintiffs 17 filed an ex parte application for issuance of a temporary restraining order to, among other things, 18 restrain and enjoin Mr. Krause from using or disclosing Plaintiffs’ attorney-client 19 communications and confidential information that he obtained and was privy to during his 20 employment. The Court granted that application, and on March 30, 2017, issued a Temporary 21 Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction. 22 4. Thereafter, on or about April 26, 2017, I am informed and believe that the Court 23 issued an Order and Preliminary Injunction, to which the Parties stipulated, requiring Mr. Krause 24 to, among other things, provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel (a) copies of the recordings that he made of 25 conversations between himself and Plaintiffs’ executives while employed as Plaintiffs’ General 26 Counsel; and (b) copies of the roughly 145 emails in Mr. Krause’s possession, which he 27 1 On or about March 22, 2018, I am informed and believe that the Parties filed a stipulation to dismiss Ms. Chiu from 28 the action with prejudice. M ANATT , P HELPS & 1 P HILLIPS , LLP DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. DWIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES OPPOSITION TO KRAUSE’S MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES 1 forwarded to himself while employed as Plaintiffs’ General Counsel. 2 5. On or about May 19, 2017, I am informed and believe that Plaintiffs filed and 3 served their First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, seeking a 4 declaratory judgment and adding two additional causes of action for breach of the PMP 5 Employment Agreement and breach of the MUS Employment Agreement. 6 6. On or about June 9, 2017, I am informed and believe that Mr. Krause filed his 7 Cross-Complaint, alleging causes of action for retaliation and wrongful termination (the 8 “Retaliation Claims”), breach of his employment agreements, nonpayment of wages, waiting time 9 penalties, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. 10 7. By his Cross-Complaint, I am informed and believe that Mr. Krause seeks to 11 recover damages commensurate to the severance that he claims he was purportedly entitled to 12 receive under his employment agreements. 13 8. I am informed and believe that this case was designated complex on October 25, 14 2018, primarily because of the nuanced attorney-client privilege issues presented by this dispute 15 between a client (Plaintiffs) and their former general counsel (Mr. Krause). 16 B. Plaintiffs Have Zealously Protected Against Unnecessary Disclosure of Their Attorney-Client Communications Since Initiating This Action. 17 9. Since the inception of this Action, Plaintiffs have taken necessary steps to protect 18 against improper disclosure of their confidential attorney-client communications with Mr. Krause, 19 as well as information that Mr. Krause obtained by virtue of his position as Plaintiff’s general 20 counsel. 21 10. The Parties have disagreed about both the production and the use of confidential 22 and attorney-client privileged information, and have engaged in meet and confer discussions and 23 motion practice accordingly. 24 11. In or about August 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (the 25 “TAC”) to dismiss, without prejudice, their causes action for breach of contract and breach of 26 fiduciary duty. That operative Third Amended Complaint (the “TAC”) challenges the 27 enforceability of the employment agreements that Mr. Krause drafted and caused Plaintiffs to 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & 2 P HILLIPS , LLP DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. DWIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES OPPOSITION TO KRAUSE’S MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES 1 enter into while serving as their attorney and director. However, Plaintiffs continued to reserve 2 the right to re-assert such claims based on information obtained during Mr. Krause’s deposition 3 (which has yet to occur) and other discovery. 4 12. Around that same time, a judge pro tem issued a Report and Recommendation (the 5 “Pro Tem Report”) addressing issues related to the discoverability of Plaintiffs’ attorney-client 6 privileged communications. 7 13. The Parties thereafter engaged in voluminous briefing regarding whether, and to 8 what extent, this Court should adopt the Pro Tem Report. 9 14. On May 29, 2019 the Court issued its Order Adopting in Part Discovery Report 10 and Recommendation of Judge Pro Tem (“May 29 Order”). By that Order, the Court required 11 Plaintiffs to produce certain responsive attorney-client privileged communications to which Mr. 12 Krause was a party and materials that he prepared, received, or reviewed during his employment 13 15. Pursuant to the May 29 Order, Plaintiffs have produced, and will continue to 14 produce, such documents. 15 16. Those same documents were then the subject of further briefing before the Court 16 to determine if and how the attorney-client communications produced by Plaintiffs during 17 discovery could be used during this litigation. 18 17. In the associated briefing, Mr. Krause argued that he should be able to use, and 19 publicly disclose, Plaintiffs’ confidential attorney-client communications for any purpose. 20 Plaintiffs disagreed. 21 18. On December 6, 2019, the Court issued an Order limiting Mr. Krause’s ability to 22 use attorney-client privileged documents and communications (the “December 2019 Order”) 23 “only…as evidence for [his] breach of contract claim” and not “to establish Krause’s retaliation 24 or wrongful termination claims.” 25 C. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Only One Deposition Has Been Completed to Date. 26 19. In light of recent developments related to the COVID-19 pandemic, at this time, a 27 single, half-day deposition of a third party witness has been taken. Mr. Krause has noticed 28 various deposition of other third party witnesses, but those depositions have yet to occur. M ANATT , P HELPS & 3 P HILLIPS , LLP DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. DWIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES OPPOSITION TO KRAUSE’S MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES 1 20. Depositions of Mr. Krause and Plaintiffs’ CEO Stanley Cheng have not yet been 2 scheduled, but the Parties have discussed potential dates in August or September. 3 21. The Parties continue to serve written discovery and it is likely that third party 4 subpoenas will be necessary. 5 D. Three Meyer Executives Obtained Judgments Against Krause for His Illegal Recordings. 6 22. On April 13, 2017, around the time that Plaintiffs initiated this action, I am 7 informed and believe that the Meyer executives whom Krause secretly and unlawfully recorded, 8 including Plaintiffs’ CEO, Stanley Cheng, filed a separate lawsuit against Krause, entitled 9 Johnston, et al. v. Krause, Superior Court of California, County of Solano, Case No. FCS048702, 10 for his violations of Penal Code section 632 (the “Johnston Action). Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 A is a true and correct copy of the Complaint filed in the Johnston Action. 12 23. I am informed and believe that on or about October 8, 2019, three of those Meyer 13 executives, Darrin Johnston, Christoph Milz, and Steve Brown, obtained judgments in their favor 14 and against Krause in the Johnston Action. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct 15 copy of the October 8, 2019 Judgment and Order granting Summary Judgment against Defendant 16 Dean Luca Krause and for Plaintiffs Darrin Johnston, Christoph Milz, and Steve Brown. 17 24. I am informed and believe that on or about February 4, 2020, Plaintiffs’ CEO, 18 Stanley Cheng, obtained a judgment against Mr. Krause in his favor in the Johnston Action. 19 Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the February 4, 2020 Judgment. 20 25. I am informed and believe that on or about March 16, 2020, another Meyer 21 executive, Mary Jane Nicolas-Carrion, also obtained a judgment against Mr. Krause in her favor 22 in the Johnston Action. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the March 9, 23 2020 Judgment. 24 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// M ANATT , P HELPS & 4 P HILLIPS , LLP DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. DWIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES OPPOSITION TO KRAUSE’S MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES 1 26. In this Action, Krause has refused to answer discovery requests related to his 2 recording conversations between himself and Plaintiffs’ executives without their knowledge or 3 consent, and has instead asserted the Fifth Amendment. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are true 4 and correct excepts from Krause’s responses to Plaintiff’s Inspection Demands, Nos. 24-25, 30- 5 32. 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 7 foregoing is true and correct, executed this 29th day of June, 2020, at San Mateo, California. 8 9 10 ___________________________ 11 326503393.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & 5 P HILLIPS , LLP DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. DWIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES OPPOSITION TO KRAUSE’S MOTION TO REALIGN THE PARTIES EXHIBIT A Mani Sheik {SBN 245487) ENDORSED FilED Clerk of the Superior Cn1Jrt SHEIK-LAW, INC. 2 321 WestPortal.Ave, APR 13 2017 3 San Francis.co, CA 94127 Tel: (415)2°05-8490 G. Ureta 4 F~ ( 4-l S) 7~6-0875 8Y--o=ep=u=rv=cL""'eA=K--- Etn~il: mani@sheiklaw.us 5 A*'meys,for PJaijltiffs 6 DARRIN JOHNSTQN, an individuaJ1 MARY JANE .t'IICOtAS-CARRidN, an mq1vidual, 1 CHRJSTOPH MILZ, an.individual STEVE ~ 8 BROWN, an individual, AND STANLEY CHENG, an individual "Tl ~ 9 SUPERIOR COURT OJ' THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOLANO UNLIMITED JURISDlCTION fCS048702 11 12 DARRIN JOHNSTQN, anindiv.idual, MARY JANENICOLAS-CARRION.:an CASE NO.: COMPLAJNT FOR - - - - - --- DAMAGES individual, CHRISTOPH MILZ, an 13 individ\Jal, STEVE BROWN, an I. Reco~d:ing Confidential Communicati9ns individual. and STAJ:'.!LEY CHENG. an 14 individqal, (Penal Code §§630 et seq. & 637.2); 15 Plaintiffs, 16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL v. 17 DEAN LUCAKRAUSE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 19 Defendants. : ASSIGNED TO JlJDGE MJCHAEL MATTICE 20 FOR ALL PURPOSES 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiffs DARRIN JOHNSTON. an indh.i dual. MARY JANE NICOLAS-CARRION. nn 2 individual, CHRJSTOPH MTLZ. an jndividual, STEVE BROWN, an individual> and STANLEY 3 CHENG, an individual (collectively the ··PJaintiffsj by and through their widersigned counsel. 4 bring tbjs Complaint for Damages tmd Injunctive Relief ("Complaint") against Defendant DEAN 5 LUCA KRAUSE (''Krause"), an individual~ and DOES 1through20 (collectively. "Defendants'') 6 and allege as follows: 7 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8 1. This Coun has jurisdiction to bear the subject matter of this Complaint because the 9 harm Plaintiffs allege has occurred and will continue to occur in California. 10 2. This Court also has jurisdiction over Defendant because he is a resident of 11 Califumia and/or has sufficient minimum contacts so as to render jurisdiction over him by the 12 California courts consistent \.\ith traditional notions of fair play and subsLaOtial justice. 13 3. This Coun has jurisdiction to award damages and penalties pursuant lo Penal 14 Code §63 .... 2 15 4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure § 395(a) 16 because the injuries a.Ueged herein with respect to each Plaintiff occurred in Solano County. 17 PARTIES 18 5. Plaintiff Darrin Johnston(" Johns10n..) is an individual who is employed by Meyer 19 Corporation. U.S. ("Meyer") as a Managing Director nnd works at Meyer's headquaners in 20 Vallejo, California. He has been employed by Meyer for 18 years. He is responsible for the 21 overa.JJ executive leadership of Meyer. 22 6. Plaintiff Mary Jane Nicolas-Ourion (''Nicolas-Carrion") is an individuaJ who is 23 employed by Meyer as a Senior Manager oflntellectual Properties Global Operations and work!> 24 at its headquarters in Vallejo. California. She has worked for Meyer for 10+ years. 25 7. Plaintiff Christoph Milz (.. Milz'') is nn individual who is employed as the Managmg 26 Director ofHestan Smart Cooking lnc. ("IISC..). an affiliate of Meyer, and works al its 27 beadquaners in Vallejo. California. He bas ~orked for HSC for approximately 1.5 years. 28 COMPLAJNTFORDAMAGES 1 8. Plaintiff Steve Brown ("Brown") is the Chief Executive Oflicer of Blue Mountain 2 Enterprises. LLC (''Blue Mountain")~ an affiliate of Meyer. Brown works for Blue Mountain in 3 Solano County, California. He has \vorked for Blue Mountain for more than 8 years. 4 9. Stanley Cheng e·cbeng") is an individual who is employed by Meyer as ib Chief 5 Executive Officer. He is responsible for all operations of Meyer. He has worked for 24.5 years 6 for Meyer. Cheng works at Meyer's headquarters in VaUejo. California. 7 10. Defendant Dean Krause ('·Krause") is the former Senior Vice President/General 8 Counsel of Meyer and the past President of Meyer's affiliate. Polymathic Properties. Inc. 9 c-PMP-). At all times relevant herein, Krause was and is a member of the State Bar of California JO and acted as an attorney to Meyer, all its affiliates and to its management, and each of them, and 11 as such owed the highest degree of fiduciary duty to them. Krause \W.S also a member of the 12 Board of Directors of Meyer, PMP. and many other Meyer affiliated entities. 13 1I. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities. whether individual corporate. 14 or associate of those Defendants fictitiously sued as DOES lthrough 20 and therefore sue by 15 such fictitious names pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure §47-1. Plaintiffs -will amend 16 this Complaint to allege the Lrue names and capacities of DOES I through 20 when Plaintiffs 17 knows Lhem. Each of DOES I through 20 is in some manner legally responsible for the harm 18 aUeged herein. 19 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 20 A. Krause Was Emplo)·ed As PlaintifJs' General Counsel From 2003-2017 21 12. Krause is a California attorney licensed by the State Bar of California. license 22 number 181308. Krause worked as General Counsel for Plaintiffs from June 2003 until be was 23 terminated on March l 0. 2017. 24 13. Krause was expected to faith.fully. dijjgenlly and competently perform his duties. 25 including without limitation~ keeping confidential al l attorney-client communications. and 26 including an expectation that he would not record com ersatioos with bis clients, inclucling 27 Plaintiffs, who are business executives of Meyer. 28 14. Krause spent 14 years building trUSt with the executives and employee:~ including COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGF.s 2 Plaintiffs, who make up Meyer·s businesses. Krause went to great lengths lo try to get Plaintiffs 2 and Meyer~s other executives to trust him as the General Counsel and to reveal their confidences 3 to him in confidential and private conversations. 4 B. Krause Was Terminated On March 10, 2017 15. Krause's employment wilh Meyer and PMP was terminated March 10. 2017. 5 6 C. Krause Made 'umerous Recordings of Confidential Connrsations With His Client 7 16. Plaintiffs discovered that Krause had made numerous unauthorized recordings of conversations between himself and each of the Plaintiffs. Esch one of the conversations that 8 Krause recorded was intended lo be confidential by each of the Plaintiffs who participated m the 9 conversation. None of the conversations that were recorded and that are alleged herein were 10 public or were intended to be public or were intended to be overheard by anyone other than the 11 conversation participants. In fact, each of the recorded conversations took place in private offices 12 m Meyer. behind closed dool'S and related to confidential, sensithe anorney-client or confidential l3 business infonnation that was known to only a small group of executives at the company. or in 14 some instances, confidential and sensitive private personal information, which was never intended 15 to be disclosed beyond the scope of th~ conversation. Plaintiffs understood that each 16 conversation was highly confidential and that the com ersations about the subject matter would be 17 kept confidential. 18 17. The confidential nature of each of the conversations is bolstered by the fact that the conversations were between Meyer's executives and their in-house counsel. Each Plaintiff 19 who participated in the conversations in question understood that the attomey-c.lient privilege 20 protec1ed the c-0nfidentiality of I.be conversation and understood that if the conversation was not 21 protected by the actorney-client privilege. I.be conversation was protected from disclosure because 22 it \\'aS about confidential attorney-client information. Each Plaintiff understood that Krause had a 23 ducy to keep the content of rbe conversations secret. In sbon. each Plaintiff reasonably believed 24 that each of the conversations alleged in this complaint. and which were unlawfully recorded by 25 Krause, were confidential and \\-Ould remain confidential. 26 18. Based on information and be1ief. Krause used a ·wire recording device attached to 27 his body to record each of the conversations described below. No one at Meyer directed him to 28 record any of the conversations at issue. CO~fPLAJNTFORD,UtAGES 3 D. Krause Recorded A Confidential Convenation With Darrin Johnston 2 19. Without infonning any party to the conversat1on, and without obtaining any 3 consent. Krause recorded a conversation bcnveen himself and Johnston, and several others. Johnston learned Krause had recorded this conversation dunng approximately the week of March 4 20, 2017. The conversation lOOk place behind closed doors. Johnston intended lhe conversation lO 5 be contldentiaJ and private because, in pan. it involved confidential auorney-client information 6 and communications and conJidential business information. Johnston never consented to the 7 conversation being recorded. 8 E. Krause Recorded A Confidential Conversation with Marv Jane Nicolas-Carrion 9 20. Without infonning any pany to the conversation. and without obtaining any 10 consent, Krause recorded a conversation between himself and Nicolas-Carrion. and sevcraJ 11 others. Nicolas-Carrion learned Krause had recorded this conversation during approximarely the 12 week of March 20. 2017. The conversation took place behind closed doors. Nicolas-Carrion 13 intended the conversation to be confidential and private because. in part. it involved confidential 14 attorney-client information and communications and confidential basiness inforrnarion. Nicolas- 15 Carrions never consented to the conversation being recorded. 16 F. Krause Recorded A CoofidentiAI Conversation With C hristoph Milz 17 21. Without informing any party to the com.eJ'Sal.ion. and without obtaining any of 18 their con.sen~ Krause reoorded a conversation between himself. Milz. and others. Milz teamed 19 Krause had recorded Lhis conversation during. approximately the week of March 20. 2017. The 20 conversation took place behind closed doors. Milz intended the conversation to be confidential and priva~ because it involved confidential attorney-client information and communications and 21 confidential business information. Milz never consented LO allow lhe conversation to be recorded. 22 G. Krame Recorded Tl\o Confidential Conversations With Brown 23 22. Without informing any party tO the conversation. and without obtaining any of 24 their consent. Krause recorded a conversation between himself. Brown, and others. Krause 25 recorded a secood conversation between himself and Brown. Brown learned that Krause had 26 recorded these convc..'t'sations during the week of March 20, 2017. The conversations look place 27 behind closed doors. Brown intended the conversations LO be confidential and private because the) involved confidential attorney-client information and communications and confidential 28 COMPLAINT FOR D~tAGES 4 1 business information. Brov.'Tl never consented to al lo\\ the conversations to be recorded. 2 H. Krause Recorde.d Nine Confidential Conversations With C heng 3 23. Without info.mUng any party to the conversation, and without obtaining any of 4 I.heir consenL Krause recorded at least 9 conversations that included Cheng. Cheng learned that Krause had recorded conversations with him during the week of March 20. 2017. The 5 conversations took place behind closed doors. Cheng intended the comersations to be 6 confidential and private because they involved confidential attorney-client information and 7 communica.tions and confidentiaJ business information. Cheng never consented to allow the 8 conversations 10 be recorded. 9 I. Each Plaintiff Has Bttn Harmed By T he Unlawful Recordings 10 24. Each of the Plaiolills has been harmed in that their trust and privacy has been violated 11 and they have suffered great emotional distress because of Krause•s conduct. Each Plaintiff 12 experienced outrage, shock, disbelief and anxiet) \\-hen they learned that Krause had recorded 13 their confidential conversations without their consenL They were furious tbat someone \tvilo had 14 coaxed them to let down their guard and entrust him with sensitive. confidential information for 15 the purpose of providing them legal and business advice. abused their trust and recorded their 16 conversations for bis own nefarious purposes without their knowledge or consent. Each of them is 17 angry that Krause so egregiously and maliciously violated their pri"Vacy. and the confidentiality of 18 their conversations. 19 FiaST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 RECORDING CO NFIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS (Penal Code §§632 & 63 7.2) 21 (Plaintiffs Against Defendants) 22 25. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all prior Parograpbs as if stated full> herein. 23 26. Krause intentionally recorded Plaintiffs' conversations by using an electronic device; 24 27. Plaintiffs. and each of them. had a reasonable expectation of privacy that each of the 25 conversations that Krause recorded was not being overheard by others who were nol in the private 26 meeting or being recorded by Krause or anyone else; 27 28. Krause did not have the consent of Plaintiffs or an)' other parties to the conversations to 28 record the conversations identified above; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES s 29. Plaintiffs. and each of them, ha'e been banned because Krouse invaded their privac) and 2 recorded their confidential attorney-client and confidential business communications; 3 30. Krause· s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs. and each of them. harm. 4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follo~-s : 6 l. For all damages, including treble damages. and penalties pennitted under law~ 7 2. For costs of suit incurred m Lhls action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; 8 3. For such other and further relief as the coun ma} deem just and proper: 9 4. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court retain jurisdiction over this matter 1O until such time as this Court has determined that Defendants have fully complied with its Orders. 11 REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY 12 Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury. 13 14 s7z:.w~LL DA TED: April 13, 20 17 15 16 17 MANI SHEIK Attorneys for Plaintiffs DARRIN 18 JOHNSTON, MARY JANE NICOLAS-CARRION,_ CHRISTOPH 19 ~?J...SJEVE BROWN AND STANw=. Y CHENG 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 6 EXHIBIT B Mani Sheik (SBN 245487) SHEIK LAW. INC. 2 333 West Portal Ave., Suite A 3 San Francisco, CA 94127 Tel: (415) 205-8490 END )ur1qr.:cri ! .vL!.1 rr···IL' .. rtO Clerk of the Superior Court 4 Fax: (415) 796-0875 Email: mani@sheiklaw.us 5 OCT - 8 2019 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 DARRIN JOHNSTON, MARY JANE NICOLAS- A.JEAN CARRION, CHRISTOPH MILZ, STEVE BY--~~~=-- 7 BROV.'N, and STANLEY CHENG oepurvete•K 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOLANO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 DARRIN JOHNSTON, an individual, 11 MARY JANE NICOLAS-CARRION, an Case No.: FCS048702 individual, CHRISTOPH MILZ. an 12 individual, STEVE BROWN, an 13 individual. and STANLEY CHENG. an f[~~ ...o.n Judgment individual, IJY' ul""'L~ 14 Plaintiffs. 15 V. Complaint Filed: 4-13-17 ,. . ,; fl!' )C 16 DEAN LUCA KRAUSE, an and DOES I through 20, individual; inclusive, Trial Date: 3-3-20 17 : «S u. 18 Defendants. Assigned for all purposes to ~ Hon. Michael C. Mattice 19 -·- • 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [Proposed] Judgment On S