Preview
oN LO
oem i)
WN 22 ms
fornia
(ue. Super
. or Court of Cali
nn COUNTY
MAR 26 2021 av
ine ogre
AUT
maar CALIFORNIA
UoLUMNE RG
1 957394
eyeZl4 1
100 0
} Case No
}
} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
} ATTACHMENT FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
}
TY}
E }
}
}
}
s
I }
}
}
i}
}
}
}
i}
-_'
ins simple and straight forward. There are numerous
aeans , who have manipulated Plaintiff by deceptive lies
icient amounts of physical pain that would linger for not
Be it known , that Plaintiff was 20 years of age when first
shoe manufacturing business which violated many
trusted "by the young Jera Williams, to perform ata
tors concealed data from Plaintiff, cut corners as regards
ies which directed Defendants farther away from the path
ompass which led to indefensible avenues of unacceptable
1S trusted her Doctors , her Lawyer, her Workers Comp
-l-
LE OF DOCUMENT
or
@
ictriment. Defendants responded by continuing to violate
|
its, to her detriment. This lawsuit endeavors to expose the
luct by Defendants which will be shown to have directly and
|
vain and anxiety to the tune of $13,000, 000. What is about
events wherein ALL four sets of Defendants( Medical ,
we Carrier ) have displayed a total disregard for the
\
'
ributed to their Negligence , however, the vast majority of
{
2 intent, malice and was fraudulently based.
'
SHOWN TO HAVE EMPLOYED DELIBERATE ACTS
\EPRESENTATION AS WELL AS INTENTIONAL
|
|
or Plaintiff, it will further be shown, Doctors who were
from Plaintiff , cut corners as regards treatment and
allowed Defendants to commit acts which included
2mbraced unacceptable standards coupled with wrongful
performed on this patient, to the detriment of Plaintiff.
bly lich that the Defendants were “entrusted” to perform
itmay be implied in good faith that there exists an implied
mployment agreement. The evidence here will demonstrate
he detriment of Plaintiff. THIS EMPLOYER NOT ONLY
yee Jer Williams, but also used its subsidiaries ( Rocket
“hiding behind the veil of their protection” and by
ff into thinking she would be receiving extra income by
egular job as clerk in shipping and receiving.
intiff trusted these professionals which leads to her
best’ representation and largest award of monetary benefit
>, Her Attorney immediately convinced her to change her
»y’s highly recommended Dr. Gwalani, to Plaintiffs
ict edhibited by her Attorney, was a magic act, he kept
the udge , however, this Attorney NEVER allowed her to
|
2=
|
'LE OF DOCUMENT
|
|
'
®
|
|
ver a court date was scheduled , Attorney Vincent Scotto III
é NEVER was able to speak with any of the three judges. .
attomey’s actions gave the appearance of impropriety, this
loud!
|
tiff , as regards Jera’s ability to contact Farmer’s
ral records and related docs, has run into a Brick Wall.
wes to REFUSE to provide Plaintiff with a copy of her
requested would have significantly assisted Jera’s current
her ANY medical records without the clearance from the
: place Plaintiff at a distinct disadvantage. Further, Plaintiff
if, a letter from Attorney Scotto’s Law Office declaring
ats Jera Williams. Farmer’s responded, for the last 8 years,
|
ng as the Court’s file states Scotto is the Attorney of
copies of Jera Williams ‘ Medical records. “ Jera asks
|
|
reas of deep concern the Defendants must be held
uced when providing( commencing on page 6, line 17+)
DES SHOWING CLEARLY THE DEFENDANT'S
ver 30 examples or episodes which will be introduced to
t exhibited by Defendants.
THESE EXAMPLES OR EPISODES to establish each
se of Action listed below.
|
The following Causes of Action will be relied upon to
JERA WILLIAMS.
ans, Legal Counsel and Insurance Carrier abused their
his young lady to the extent she was PHYSICALLY,
IGNITIVELY BROKEN and placed on “suicide watch “,
utive months, and this serves as a valuable measuring stick,
‘
'
-3-
|
!
ie OF DOCUMENT
|
|
|
|
‘hen the time comes to place a monetary amount with regard
tress” , because clearly, it begs the Question.... just how
en on, to have begged to die EVERYDAY for 5
g for New York Transit, Inc., at the young age of 20 years.
ff were lies, then they concealed material evidence,
“hese are serious charges and they shall be addressed as
{
|
|
merits, this Plaintiff , who has lived through a horrifying
vince this court that there were some very foul tactics ,
aployed on NUMEROUS occasions by these Defendants
actions initiated by Defendants , in over thirty separate
breaking point. She was lied to, manipulated , promised
ork'two and sometimes three jobs in a day, until her young
treatment. Plaintiff has the opportunity at this time to
iregard for her well-being demonstrated repeatedly by each
3 treatment she received from these Defendants, in spite of
ments she was given and told that the documents were
ous! and intense pain she was compelled to face day in and
“time she was placed on “ Suicide Watch” , in spite of the
AED until she lost her voice, in spite of the frightful days
theday for months at a time, until she could not remember
as doing, in spite of the Physicians administering some of
drugs on the planet, in spite of different Doctors unwilling
vere actually doubling up on some of the Prescription drugs.
asionally 3 and 4 times the amount she should have
2d NOT that she begged her Doctors to put an END TO THE
‘time and again, get “hooked “ on the prescriptions then
Id Turkey”, she recalls those pains both physically and
ically implanted “neurostimulator” has malfunctioned and
tan it had worked properly, this Plaintiff, JERA
E SCANDALOUS VULTURES AND SPEAK THE
allow) this once vibrant 20 year old to recall the multi-
the shameful way she was discarded by her Employers, the
|
+4-
|
"LE OF DOCUMENT
'
|
bie Attorney and was left in disbelief that “Professionals”
force this court to shake its head in disgust at the many foul
; lady. These are some rather harsh accusations , however,
fendants displayed such callous and cold-hearted tricks on
of anxiety and pain were felt by Plaintiff and several
n despair that Plaintiff was ever exposed to the graphically
Villiams is NOT completely back to being herself, that
physical and psychological wounds which have yet to
ll satisfy the elements establishing each CAUSE OF
\
|
and Intentional Deceit
|
|
|
'
“willfully deceives another with the intent to induce him
“al. Civ. Code §1709. Plaintiff can offer several instances
ch satisfies the elements requisite to establish Fraud and
|
|
ms for fraudulent dealings in a contractual setting in §1572
ential, fiduciary or legally recognized special relationship in
setting, a claim for reformation or rescission of a contract
ire essentially equivalent to the elements discussed below
“ahoe Gas Co. v. Hofmann Land Improvement Co., 25 Cal.
\
|
fthem, each in their own respective spheres of
Plaintiff Jera Williams, to her detriment. The cumulative
rophic.
ions consisting of either:
|
ie suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who
|
|
ro
"LE OF DOCUMENT
1
|
Joie
ay
®
sression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it or who
ay to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or
'
hout any intention of performing it.
e g1572 It cannot be refuted that each Defendant
| manner or method which was NOT motivated by Good
1 their subsidiaries, ( Rocket Dog & Bissou, Bissou)offered
model”, thus while employed in “shipping and receiving”
vuld place two different types of shoes on her feet and tend
pation of earning more money as a shoe tester or as they
nployer had her working two jobs, but never paid her for
iat she would receive payment upon “mass production” of
sed” the test of comfort, durability and showing no defects
rk hours. Her Attorney for her Workers Comp case
geak at the periodic court appointments , however, Attorney
|
atténd any of those scheduled court dates. Finally her
earanltig her of their strategies in handling her case.
| é
EPISODES of Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct -
|
darticular segment lists the most egregious acts not limited
tiff will offer the most compelling acts demonstrating
:fendants in clear and concise language .
\
2 mass production of a certain type of shoe , the Employer
oOChina, but under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would she be
it first having a series of shots to prevent malaria and
iff was there over three weeks without having been
racted parasites in her intestine, commonly referred to as
iterobius vermincularis ( the pinworm ) and Ascaris lumbri
\
| California Labor Laws, as when Defendants assigned
vere first worn by a female wear /tester from China, and
ecause the second person to try or test these shoes could
‘
k
|
+6-
‘LE OF DOCUMENT
4
*
5.0F injuries . (Clear violations of Labor Code Laws
see Labor Code §§
has had serious problems following the guidelines of the
te requirements and Labor Laws.
sermitted Plaintiff Jera Williams , to wear /test two different
d shoe on her left foot and simultaneously a 1“ healed shoe
k'shift in “shipping and receiving” Jera was promised she
: shoes supplied by subsidiaries of New York Transit, Inc.
jor problems due to the variance of shoe styles which
nt of her feet , clearly taxing the feet of Plaintiff due to the
ig hugely different styles of shoes.
satly, caused the problems which manifest first in
tiff feet, ( directly caused by the constant cuts , blisters and
ing of a variety of different types of shoes , which was
irpal tunnel ), then most recently, injuries to her neck and
ployment requests placed upon Jera Williams.)
1
rg Dr. Gwalani, when he felt frustrated and could not locate
give up. Somehow the neurostimulator had turned on full
pent on the phone with medtronics representatives trying
* It was causing Plaintiff to kick her legs in the air , up and
cing. Plaintiff screamed until she lost her voice, as both
sbelief at this hellish duration which lasted continuously for
}
|
!
y (he said he was giving Plaintiff Jera a new battery, one
t9 change the lead wires, therefore, he did NOT properly
tiff being unable to be administred an "MRI ", which is
t
t
}
|
ers approval for diagnostic procedures such as MRIs and
ved , which is required before the Doctor would receive
tani would seek approval , however, he would NEVER
‘
i
-7-
i
iE OF DOCUMENT
i
@
got paid for those procedures he never performed. Besides
le by fines and incarceration.
on Plaintiff's right side (Lumbar Sympathetic Nerve Block)
aintiffs right side of lower back hurt with such intensity she
cutive minutes to over an hour. This occurred over a dozen
|
|
tiff would phone her mother extremely depressed ,
ther immediately leaving work and rushing home. Upon
the fire department arrived, they discovered Plaintiff had
the rescue team from placing an I V in her arm. So
‘in Plaintiff, that she contracted Flibitis in her veins, which
at'the vein cannot receive as would a normal vein, the
!
|
‘
aintiff when after Plaintiffs Mother transported Plaintiff
1 in Sonora, then immediately taken by Ambulance to
the good Doctor had punctured her Kidney.
|
urgery on Ms. Williams at the Fremont Surgery Center,
nglion nerve blocks in her neck, the Doctor would perform
e converted a chart room into an operating room, in one
yut Plaintiff on 1V for fluids , did NOT us an anethesiologist
i place of Plaintiffs scheduled surgery, and the good
ed her to remove all clothing , wherein she was strapped
vasiplaced over her face , a slight opening secured from a
t this procedure will "really hurt, but you cannot move", the
1 the good Doctor stated " OK, now get up, get dressed and
rec
|overy room. Not even for 30 seconds. The Farmer's
\ anything like this before.
!
sa inemorable one, in which he stated emphatically, "I do
cause | am not getting paid , they keep denying ALL of
is keep performing Surgeries on you, it's the only way they
|
8
‘
‘LE OF DOCUMENT
‘
|
t
®
|
luring 24/7 that Plaintiff was in a constant state wherein
tiffs mother took her to work at Kaiser Hospital, where
‘head on her Mother's desk and drool for hours at a time.
med some semblancve of awareness, so too did the pain
‘just kill me, please". This prodded her Mother to take a
ith her daughter , at home. Dr Gwalani would switch
rom OXYCONTIN, to METHADONE , to Dilauted then to
d through withdrawals , while constantly being placed on
3.R. room at Kaiser Hospital. Plaintiff's Mother was ordered
|
-” zhter.
rital to place Plaintiff where they could observe her every
ithdiavweal Phychosis, thus she was placed on Diluated,
r off Methodone.
\tiff was NOT a good candidate for Opiates, and presented
insert a neurostimulator from Medtronics. which would
ae Spinal Cord with a battery inserted by her hip, the rest
{
5 months , wherein Plaintiff Jera Williams was placed on
days , Jera was placed on “suicide watch” for 5 consecutive
thich emphasizes just how pervasive and intense her pain
med by Farmer’s Workers Comp Carrier for New York
from Farmers ANY OF HER MEDICAL RECORDS, AND
‘O| THE PRESENT DAY. Farmers claims Anthony Scotto is
Plaintiff copies of his withdrawal as her Counsel as far back
\ere are fabricating their story.
ins they alone are the Employer of Plaintiff. However,
asia foot model/ shoe tester.
|
'
Qe
|
‘LE OF DOCUMENT
'
|!
SS
®@
as to whom her employer was , maintained
t York Transit, Inc.
the policy for “shoe testers “ was that Employer provided
or to Jera commencing to wear the different styles of shoes .
ick “ for the testers to continue wearing shoes until thy
es blood or create even greater difficulty while
'
'
}
any policy which mandated Plaintiff to slip her feet in
saf time. when the pain, blisters or bleeding would have
|
'
tted one of the most egregious acts , when he
atiff to enter a court room, i.e., her attorney NEVER
m, for fear she would follow up on her complaints
collusion with Employer and Physician .
e would be allowed to addresss the court at the final
sed Plaintiff to remain in the cafeteria until her case was
|
her access to the courtroom. Plaintiff never once saw a
2 entirety of her Workers Comp case .
cifically deniad her, Wer meddcok eR got 5 .
intains this Attorney mailed what Attorney claimed were
her, to misguide her and keep her confused, for Plaintiff
ents Attorney sent to Plaintiff alleging they were original
tt these trusted professionals were “gaming” this young
ond ly wind her as tight as a drum and watch her burst.
sonsistent, he consistently failed or refused to return
4
\
|
arnings she gave to Attorney Scotto, to her Employer and to
ulously altered her date of injury, likely to benefit her
'
! .10-
|
TEIOF DOCUMENT
®@
ner, he changed the original “injury to her feet” date and
ich makes no sense to Plaintiff, since Jera knows the foot
RE the hand injury. Jera must have informed them (the
ke , and that she would do whatever it took to alert the
ig and altering of key evidence.
se after Promise, however , virtually NONE OF THEM
:d in Shipping and Receiving ,and subsequently, was
urs at work, she would wear/test dozens of shoes for extra
wo jobs, and once again a subsidiary of New York Transit,
ou, Bissou ), offered significantly MORE money should
vening and wear/test these shoes for 4 to 8 hours AFTER
ibe wear/testing the shoes at her home.
room in his office into an operating room. Once he began
rt cut was completed and laintiff was screaming,he reaized
surgery in the chart room, he realized he had run out of IV
ut any IV bags.
late of Plaintiff's injury and she advised him that was highly
such and he advised her “ It would be wise of you NOT to
‘omise to her Attomey, that when she finally stands before a
orm him that the Attorney and Dr. Gwalani conspired to
es.
or facts , essential to the analysis undertaken by the plaintiff
ed as she did without it. Roddenberry v. Roddenberry, 44
(1996).
-l1l1-
'LE OF DOCUMENT
*
wledge of its falsities or a knowledge of the effect of
3 Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194, 227 Cal. Rptr. 887 (1986);
9 Cal. Rptr. 288 (1975). This element distinguishes
igent misrepresentation. Gagne v. Bertran, 43 Cal. 2d 481,
iduce the plaintiff to alter her position to her injury or risk.
wr deceive is not required; the plaintiff need only prove the
his position, Nathanson v. Murphy, 132 Cal. App. 2d 363,
iv. Code §1572 (fraud in the context of a contract
ontract, or to induce a party to enter into the contract),
rts (Restatement) states: “One who fraudulently makes a
e of inducing another to act or to refrain from action in
e other in deceit for pecuniary loss caused to him by his
ition.” Section 531 of the Restatement states the “general
nisrepresentation is subject to liability to the persons or
ason to expect to act or to refrain from action in reliance
loss suffered by them through their justifiable reliance
ids or has reason to expect their conduct to be
|. App. 4th 1016F, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 711, Cal. App. 3 Dist.,
‘each Defendant caused Plaintiff damages as it had done in
3d 1262, 1268, 258 Cal. Rptr. 787 (1989); Wildey v. Seaver,
he misrepresentation must be and here WAS the proximate
Fidelity Nat’! Title Ins. Co., 21 Cal. App. 4th 1802, 1807-
rty claiming fraud must prove the elements of the claim.
al. App. 2d 715, 718, 60 Cal. Rptr. 824 (1967). The claim
-12-
LE OF DOCUMENT
*
i
|
idence. Liodas v. Sahadi, 19 Cal. 3d 278, 290, 137 Cal. Rptr.
aces a e neral proposition defining fraud, and it includes
idjunfair ways by which another is deceived. Wells v.
7);
ud; embraces anything that is intended to deceive,
nd omissions involving a breach of legal or equitable duty,
one who justifiably relies thereon.” Pearson v. Norton, 230
i
'
fact made with the intent to defraud and relied upon by
Sears v, Myerson, 106 Cal. App. 220, 222-23, 289 P. 173
|
rustworthy and reliable , and clearly convinced Plaintiff Jera
every Defendant identified in this Complaint. A
laim in tort to lie. A misrepresentation may be implied or
By-Products, Inc. v. City of Modesto, 43 Cal. App. 3d 145,
t
1
1e of an intentional deceit claim can be either a positive
|
at is true. An affirmative false representation or a knowing
|
rcumstance will provide the necessary misrepresentation
Hodgson, 38 Cal. 2d 91, 237 P.2d 656 (1951); Roddenberry
Cal
1 Rptr. 2d 907 (1996); Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal.
i
I
sarising out of the suppression of information that should
ionlof information that is false. Agnew v. Cronin, 148 Cal.
(57),
t
‘
=e
'LE OF DOCUMENT
zs
|
¢
rson entitled to rely on the assertion forms the basis of an
‘al App. 2d 513, 527, 272 P.2d 949 (1954).
'
of professional opinion are treated as representations of
‘m of an opinion, is ‘not a casual expression of belief’
ited,” it may be regarded as a positive assertion of fact.
self out as possessing superior knowledge or special
t matter, and a plaintiff is so situated that it may reasonably
n or expertise, the defendant’s representation may be
Deloitte & Touche, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1468, 1476, 66 Cal.
|
|
|
vith apparent superior knowledge and when not
|
re resentations. Harazim v. Lynam, 267 Cal. App. 2d 127,
|
|
1out the intention of performing it. Cal. Civ. Code
|
that Defendants made PROMISES , but never intended
nee, they issued FALSE PROMISES.
{
action for deceit, grounded in the notion that a promise to
ion to perform. Thus, where a promise is made without any
2d misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud.
, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377 (1996).
\
1
iallenough to the circumstances that, if it had not been
aiken by the plaintiff would not have occurred. Andrew v.
66, 575, 281 P. 1091 (1929).
|
|
utlactual knowledge that the representation was false if
dless
=
disregard for the truth. Cal. Civ. Code §1710(1); In
Cal. Rptr. 728 (1984).
‘| | 714-
!
LE OF DOCUMENT
|
{
|
@
|
_misrepresentation must have been made with the
ell, 18 Cal. 2d 409, 414, 115 P.2d 977 (1941).
nation that is not true by a party who does not believe it to
4,'32 Cal. Rptr. 607 (1962).
t
i
prove that the defendant acted to cause a change of
if the party claiming fraud. Nathanson v. Murphy, 132
5). |
|
rt the intent to defraud. The vital element of the claim is
another person in response to a misrepresentation.
26 P.2d 229 (1958).
l the acts of the parties because direct proof of intent for
s, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 216 Cal. App. 3d 388,
|
|
|
UIPLOYER/DOCTOR/LAWYER were honorable persons
|
'
'
'
evidence, as well as by direct evidence. The law will
een made and action taken thereafter. Vasquez v. Superior
814, 94 Cal. Rptr. 796 (1971).
i
letetmined on a case-by-case basis, considering the
anid not a reasonable person. Brownlee v. Vang, 235 Cal.
1
‘
fered to prove the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
at is liable to the plaintiff “for any damage which he
~15=
j
i
L E OF DOCUMENT
Preview
oN LO oem i) WN 22 ms fornia (ue. Super . or Court of Cali nn COUNTY MAR 26 2021 av ine ogre AUT maar CALIFORNIA UoLUMNE RG 1 957394 eyeZl4 1 100 0 } Case No } } COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES } ATTACHMENT FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES } TY} E } } } } s I } } } i} } } } i} -_' ins simple and straight forward. There are numerous aeans , who have manipulated Plaintiff by deceptive lies icient amounts of physical pain that would linger for not Be it known , that Plaintiff was 20 years of age when first shoe manufacturing business which violated many trusted "by the young Jera Williams, to perform ata tors concealed data from Plaintiff, cut corners as regards ies which directed Defendants farther away from the path ompass which led to indefensible avenues of unacceptable 1S trusted her Doctors , her Lawyer, her Workers Comp -l- LE OF DOCUMENT or @ ictriment. Defendants responded by continuing to violate | its, to her detriment. This lawsuit endeavors to expose the luct by Defendants which will be shown to have directly and | vain and anxiety to the tune of $13,000, 000. What is about events wherein ALL four sets of Defendants( Medical , we Carrier ) have displayed a total disregard for the \ ' ributed to their Negligence , however, the vast majority of { 2 intent, malice and was fraudulently based. ' SHOWN TO HAVE EMPLOYED DELIBERATE ACTS \EPRESENTATION AS WELL AS INTENTIONAL | | or Plaintiff, it will further be shown, Doctors who were from Plaintiff , cut corners as regards treatment and allowed Defendants to commit acts which included 2mbraced unacceptable standards coupled with wrongful performed on this patient, to the detriment of Plaintiff. bly lich that the Defendants were “entrusted” to perform itmay be implied in good faith that there exists an implied mployment agreement. The evidence here will demonstrate he detriment of Plaintiff. THIS EMPLOYER NOT ONLY yee Jer Williams, but also used its subsidiaries ( Rocket “hiding behind the veil of their protection” and by ff into thinking she would be receiving extra income by egular job as clerk in shipping and receiving. intiff trusted these professionals which leads to her best’ representation and largest award of monetary benefit >, Her Attorney immediately convinced her to change her »y’s highly recommended Dr. Gwalani, to Plaintiffs ict edhibited by her Attorney, was a magic act, he kept the udge , however, this Attorney NEVER allowed her to | 2= | 'LE OF DOCUMENT | | ' ® | | ver a court date was scheduled , Attorney Vincent Scotto III é NEVER was able to speak with any of the three judges. . attomey’s actions gave the appearance of impropriety, this loud! | tiff , as regards Jera’s ability to contact Farmer’s ral records and related docs, has run into a Brick Wall. wes to REFUSE to provide Plaintiff with a copy of her requested would have significantly assisted Jera’s current her ANY medical records without the clearance from the : place Plaintiff at a distinct disadvantage. Further, Plaintiff if, a letter from Attorney Scotto’s Law Office declaring ats Jera Williams. Farmer’s responded, for the last 8 years, | ng as the Court’s file states Scotto is the Attorney of copies of Jera Williams ‘ Medical records. “ Jera asks | | reas of deep concern the Defendants must be held uced when providing( commencing on page 6, line 17+) DES SHOWING CLEARLY THE DEFENDANT'S ver 30 examples or episodes which will be introduced to t exhibited by Defendants. THESE EXAMPLES OR EPISODES to establish each se of Action listed below. | The following Causes of Action will be relied upon to JERA WILLIAMS. ans, Legal Counsel and Insurance Carrier abused their his young lady to the extent she was PHYSICALLY, IGNITIVELY BROKEN and placed on “suicide watch “, utive months, and this serves as a valuable measuring stick, ‘ ' -3- | ! ie OF DOCUMENT | | | | ‘hen the time comes to place a monetary amount with regard tress” , because clearly, it begs the Question.... just how en on, to have begged to die EVERYDAY for 5 g for New York Transit, Inc., at the young age of 20 years. ff were lies, then they concealed material evidence, “hese are serious charges and they shall be addressed as { | | merits, this Plaintiff , who has lived through a horrifying vince this court that there were some very foul tactics , aployed on NUMEROUS occasions by these Defendants actions initiated by Defendants , in over thirty separate breaking point. She was lied to, manipulated , promised ork'two and sometimes three jobs in a day, until her young treatment. Plaintiff has the opportunity at this time to iregard for her well-being demonstrated repeatedly by each 3 treatment she received from these Defendants, in spite of ments she was given and told that the documents were ous! and intense pain she was compelled to face day in and “time she was placed on “ Suicide Watch” , in spite of the AED until she lost her voice, in spite of the frightful days theday for months at a time, until she could not remember as doing, in spite of the Physicians administering some of drugs on the planet, in spite of different Doctors unwilling vere actually doubling up on some of the Prescription drugs. asionally 3 and 4 times the amount she should have 2d NOT that she begged her Doctors to put an END TO THE ‘time and again, get “hooked “ on the prescriptions then Id Turkey”, she recalls those pains both physically and ically implanted “neurostimulator” has malfunctioned and tan it had worked properly, this Plaintiff, JERA E SCANDALOUS VULTURES AND SPEAK THE allow) this once vibrant 20 year old to recall the multi- the shameful way she was discarded by her Employers, the | +4- | "LE OF DOCUMENT ' | bie Attorney and was left in disbelief that “Professionals” force this court to shake its head in disgust at the many foul ; lady. These are some rather harsh accusations , however, fendants displayed such callous and cold-hearted tricks on of anxiety and pain were felt by Plaintiff and several n despair that Plaintiff was ever exposed to the graphically Villiams is NOT completely back to being herself, that physical and psychological wounds which have yet to ll satisfy the elements establishing each CAUSE OF \ | and Intentional Deceit | | | ' “willfully deceives another with the intent to induce him “al. Civ. Code §1709. Plaintiff can offer several instances ch satisfies the elements requisite to establish Fraud and | | ms for fraudulent dealings in a contractual setting in §1572 ential, fiduciary or legally recognized special relationship in setting, a claim for reformation or rescission of a contract ire essentially equivalent to the elements discussed below “ahoe Gas Co. v. Hofmann Land Improvement Co., 25 Cal. \ | fthem, each in their own respective spheres of Plaintiff Jera Williams, to her detriment. The cumulative rophic. ions consisting of either: | ie suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who | | ro "LE OF DOCUMENT 1 | Joie ay ® sression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it or who ay to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or ' hout any intention of performing it. e g1572 It cannot be refuted that each Defendant | manner or method which was NOT motivated by Good 1 their subsidiaries, ( Rocket Dog & Bissou, Bissou)offered model”, thus while employed in “shipping and receiving” vuld place two different types of shoes on her feet and tend pation of earning more money as a shoe tester or as they nployer had her working two jobs, but never paid her for iat she would receive payment upon “mass production” of sed” the test of comfort, durability and showing no defects rk hours. Her Attorney for her Workers Comp case geak at the periodic court appointments , however, Attorney | atténd any of those scheduled court dates. Finally her earanltig her of their strategies in handling her case. | é EPISODES of Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct - | darticular segment lists the most egregious acts not limited tiff will offer the most compelling acts demonstrating :fendants in clear and concise language . \ 2 mass production of a certain type of shoe , the Employer oOChina, but under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would she be it first having a series of shots to prevent malaria and iff was there over three weeks without having been racted parasites in her intestine, commonly referred to as iterobius vermincularis ( the pinworm ) and Ascaris lumbri \ | California Labor Laws, as when Defendants assigned vere first worn by a female wear /tester from China, and ecause the second person to try or test these shoes could ‘ k | +6- ‘LE OF DOCUMENT 4 * 5.0F injuries . (Clear violations of Labor Code Laws see Labor Code §§ has had serious problems following the guidelines of the te requirements and Labor Laws. sermitted Plaintiff Jera Williams , to wear /test two different d shoe on her left foot and simultaneously a 1“ healed shoe k'shift in “shipping and receiving” Jera was promised she : shoes supplied by subsidiaries of New York Transit, Inc. jor problems due to the variance of shoe styles which nt of her feet , clearly taxing the feet of Plaintiff due to the ig hugely different styles of shoes. satly, caused the problems which manifest first in tiff feet, ( directly caused by the constant cuts , blisters and ing of a variety of different types of shoes , which was irpal tunnel ), then most recently, injuries to her neck and ployment requests placed upon Jera Williams.) 1 rg Dr. Gwalani, when he felt frustrated and could not locate give up. Somehow the neurostimulator had turned on full pent on the phone with medtronics representatives trying * It was causing Plaintiff to kick her legs in the air , up and cing. Plaintiff screamed until she lost her voice, as both sbelief at this hellish duration which lasted continuously for } | ! y (he said he was giving Plaintiff Jera a new battery, one t9 change the lead wires, therefore, he did NOT properly tiff being unable to be administred an "MRI ", which is t t } | ers approval for diagnostic procedures such as MRIs and ved , which is required before the Doctor would receive tani would seek approval , however, he would NEVER ‘ i -7- i iE OF DOCUMENT i @ got paid for those procedures he never performed. Besides le by fines and incarceration. on Plaintiff's right side (Lumbar Sympathetic Nerve Block) aintiffs right side of lower back hurt with such intensity she cutive minutes to over an hour. This occurred over a dozen | | tiff would phone her mother extremely depressed , ther immediately leaving work and rushing home. Upon the fire department arrived, they discovered Plaintiff had the rescue team from placing an I V in her arm. So ‘in Plaintiff, that she contracted Flibitis in her veins, which at'the vein cannot receive as would a normal vein, the ! | ‘ aintiff when after Plaintiffs Mother transported Plaintiff 1 in Sonora, then immediately taken by Ambulance to the good Doctor had punctured her Kidney. | urgery on Ms. Williams at the Fremont Surgery Center, nglion nerve blocks in her neck, the Doctor would perform e converted a chart room into an operating room, in one yut Plaintiff on 1V for fluids , did NOT us an anethesiologist i place of Plaintiffs scheduled surgery, and the good ed her to remove all clothing , wherein she was strapped vasiplaced over her face , a slight opening secured from a t this procedure will "really hurt, but you cannot move", the 1 the good Doctor stated " OK, now get up, get dressed and rec |overy room. Not even for 30 seconds. The Farmer's \ anything like this before. ! sa inemorable one, in which he stated emphatically, "I do cause | am not getting paid , they keep denying ALL of is keep performing Surgeries on you, it's the only way they | 8 ‘ ‘LE OF DOCUMENT ‘ | t ® | luring 24/7 that Plaintiff was in a constant state wherein tiffs mother took her to work at Kaiser Hospital, where ‘head on her Mother's desk and drool for hours at a time. med some semblancve of awareness, so too did the pain ‘just kill me, please". This prodded her Mother to take a ith her daughter , at home. Dr Gwalani would switch rom OXYCONTIN, to METHADONE , to Dilauted then to d through withdrawals , while constantly being placed on 3.R. room at Kaiser Hospital. Plaintiff's Mother was ordered | -” zhter. rital to place Plaintiff where they could observe her every ithdiavweal Phychosis, thus she was placed on Diluated, r off Methodone. \tiff was NOT a good candidate for Opiates, and presented insert a neurostimulator from Medtronics. which would ae Spinal Cord with a battery inserted by her hip, the rest { 5 months , wherein Plaintiff Jera Williams was placed on days , Jera was placed on “suicide watch” for 5 consecutive thich emphasizes just how pervasive and intense her pain med by Farmer’s Workers Comp Carrier for New York from Farmers ANY OF HER MEDICAL RECORDS, AND ‘O| THE PRESENT DAY. Farmers claims Anthony Scotto is Plaintiff copies of his withdrawal as her Counsel as far back \ere are fabricating their story. ins they alone are the Employer of Plaintiff. However, asia foot model/ shoe tester. | ' Qe | ‘LE OF DOCUMENT ' |! SS ®@ as to whom her employer was , maintained t York Transit, Inc. the policy for “shoe testers “ was that Employer provided or to Jera commencing to wear the different styles of shoes . ick “ for the testers to continue wearing shoes until thy es blood or create even greater difficulty while ' ' } any policy which mandated Plaintiff to slip her feet in saf time. when the pain, blisters or bleeding would have | ' tted one of the most egregious acts , when he atiff to enter a court room, i.e., her attorney NEVER m, for fear she would follow up on her complaints collusion with Employer and Physician . e would be allowed to addresss the court at the final sed Plaintiff to remain in the cafeteria until her case was | her access to the courtroom. Plaintiff never once saw a 2 entirety of her Workers Comp case . cifically deniad her, Wer meddcok eR got 5 . intains this Attorney mailed what Attorney claimed were her, to misguide her and keep her confused, for Plaintiff ents Attorney sent to Plaintiff alleging they were original tt these trusted professionals were “gaming” this young ond ly wind her as tight as a drum and watch her burst. sonsistent, he consistently failed or refused to return 4 \ | arnings she gave to Attorney Scotto, to her Employer and to ulously altered her date of injury, likely to benefit her ' ! .10- | TEIOF DOCUMENT ®@ ner, he changed the original “injury to her feet” date and ich makes no sense to Plaintiff, since Jera knows the foot RE the hand injury. Jera must have informed them (the ke , and that she would do whatever it took to alert the ig and altering of key evidence. se after Promise, however , virtually NONE OF THEM :d in Shipping and Receiving ,and subsequently, was urs at work, she would wear/test dozens of shoes for extra wo jobs, and once again a subsidiary of New York Transit, ou, Bissou ), offered significantly MORE money should vening and wear/test these shoes for 4 to 8 hours AFTER ibe wear/testing the shoes at her home. room in his office into an operating room. Once he began rt cut was completed and laintiff was screaming,he reaized surgery in the chart room, he realized he had run out of IV ut any IV bags. late of Plaintiff's injury and she advised him that was highly such and he advised her “ It would be wise of you NOT to ‘omise to her Attomey, that when she finally stands before a orm him that the Attorney and Dr. Gwalani conspired to es. or facts , essential to the analysis undertaken by the plaintiff ed as she did without it. Roddenberry v. Roddenberry, 44 (1996). -l1l1- 'LE OF DOCUMENT * wledge of its falsities or a knowledge of the effect of 3 Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194, 227 Cal. Rptr. 887 (1986); 9 Cal. Rptr. 288 (1975). This element distinguishes igent misrepresentation. Gagne v. Bertran, 43 Cal. 2d 481, iduce the plaintiff to alter her position to her injury or risk. wr deceive is not required; the plaintiff need only prove the his position, Nathanson v. Murphy, 132 Cal. App. 2d 363, iv. Code §1572 (fraud in the context of a contract ontract, or to induce a party to enter into the contract), rts (Restatement) states: “One who fraudulently makes a e of inducing another to act or to refrain from action in e other in deceit for pecuniary loss caused to him by his ition.” Section 531 of the Restatement states the “general nisrepresentation is subject to liability to the persons or ason to expect to act or to refrain from action in reliance loss suffered by them through their justifiable reliance ids or has reason to expect their conduct to be |. App. 4th 1016F, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 711, Cal. App. 3 Dist., ‘each Defendant caused Plaintiff damages as it had done in 3d 1262, 1268, 258 Cal. Rptr. 787 (1989); Wildey v. Seaver, he misrepresentation must be and here WAS the proximate Fidelity Nat’! Title Ins. Co., 21 Cal. App. 4th 1802, 1807- rty claiming fraud must prove the elements of the claim. al. App. 2d 715, 718, 60 Cal. Rptr. 824 (1967). The claim -12- LE OF DOCUMENT * i | idence. Liodas v. Sahadi, 19 Cal. 3d 278, 290, 137 Cal. Rptr. aces a e neral proposition defining fraud, and it includes idjunfair ways by which another is deceived. Wells v. 7); ud; embraces anything that is intended to deceive, nd omissions involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, one who justifiably relies thereon.” Pearson v. Norton, 230 i ' fact made with the intent to defraud and relied upon by Sears v, Myerson, 106 Cal. App. 220, 222-23, 289 P. 173 | rustworthy and reliable , and clearly convinced Plaintiff Jera every Defendant identified in this Complaint. A laim in tort to lie. A misrepresentation may be implied or By-Products, Inc. v. City of Modesto, 43 Cal. App. 3d 145, t 1 1e of an intentional deceit claim can be either a positive | at is true. An affirmative false representation or a knowing | rcumstance will provide the necessary misrepresentation Hodgson, 38 Cal. 2d 91, 237 P.2d 656 (1951); Roddenberry Cal 1 Rptr. 2d 907 (1996); Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal. i I sarising out of the suppression of information that should ionlof information that is false. Agnew v. Cronin, 148 Cal. (57), t ‘ =e 'LE OF DOCUMENT zs | ¢ rson entitled to rely on the assertion forms the basis of an ‘al App. 2d 513, 527, 272 P.2d 949 (1954). ' of professional opinion are treated as representations of ‘m of an opinion, is ‘not a casual expression of belief’ ited,” it may be regarded as a positive assertion of fact. self out as possessing superior knowledge or special t matter, and a plaintiff is so situated that it may reasonably n or expertise, the defendant’s representation may be Deloitte & Touche, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1468, 1476, 66 Cal. | | | vith apparent superior knowledge and when not | re resentations. Harazim v. Lynam, 267 Cal. App. 2d 127, | | 1out the intention of performing it. Cal. Civ. Code | that Defendants made PROMISES , but never intended nee, they issued FALSE PROMISES. { action for deceit, grounded in the notion that a promise to ion to perform. Thus, where a promise is made without any 2d misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud. , 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377 (1996). \ 1 iallenough to the circumstances that, if it had not been aiken by the plaintiff would not have occurred. Andrew v. 66, 575, 281 P. 1091 (1929). | | utlactual knowledge that the representation was false if dless = disregard for the truth. Cal. Civ. Code §1710(1); In Cal. Rptr. 728 (1984). ‘| | 714- ! LE OF DOCUMENT | { | @ | _misrepresentation must have been made with the ell, 18 Cal. 2d 409, 414, 115 P.2d 977 (1941). nation that is not true by a party who does not believe it to 4,'32 Cal. Rptr. 607 (1962). t i prove that the defendant acted to cause a change of if the party claiming fraud. Nathanson v. Murphy, 132 5). | | rt the intent to defraud. The vital element of the claim is another person in response to a misrepresentation. 26 P.2d 229 (1958). l the acts of the parties because direct proof of intent for s, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 216 Cal. App. 3d 388, | | | UIPLOYER/DOCTOR/LAWYER were honorable persons | ' ' ' evidence, as well as by direct evidence. The law will een made and action taken thereafter. Vasquez v. Superior 814, 94 Cal. Rptr. 796 (1971). i letetmined on a case-by-case basis, considering the anid not a reasonable person. Brownlee v. Vang, 235 Cal. 1 ‘ fered to prove the damages suffered by Plaintiff. at is liable to the plaintiff “for any damage which he ~15= j i L E OF DOCUMENT