Preview
TRAVIS H. WHITFIELD SBN 195108
ANTHONY J. CALERO SBN: 194454
Law Offices of Travis H. Whitfield, Inc.
2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 138
San Jose, California 95131
Telephone: (408) 879-9039
Facsimile: (408) 879-9327
Attorney for Defendant xxxxx xxxx
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
) CASE NO.:20-CIV-03890
12, )
xxxxx xxxxxx )
13 ) DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J.
Plaintiff, ) CALERO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
14 ) xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO
vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
15 ) AMEND COMPLAINT
)
16 xxxxx xxxx )
) Date: April 27, 2022
Defendant. ) Time: 2:00 p.m.
) Dept.: 2 (Two)
)
)
19 )
)
20 )
)
21
22 I, ANTHONY J. CALERO, declare:
23 1. Iam the attorney of record for defendant, xxxxx xxxx, in thc above referenced
24 lawsuit.
25 2. Plaintiff filed his original Complaint containing causes of action for Civil Harassment,
26 Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on September 10, 2020.
27 3. Defendant filed her Answer to plaintiff s lawsuit for Civil Harassment and
DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. CALERO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT xxxxx
xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS -I-
Defamation on or about April 29, 2021.
4. The parties have been engaged in written discovery for the last 12 months.
5. In the past 12 months plaintiffhas served defendant with two sets of Form
Interrogatories, three sets of Request for Production of Documents (totaling 36 separate
requests), two sets of Special Interrogatories, and 71 Requests for Admissions.
6. Defendant has provided verified responses to all of plaintiff s discovery except for
Request for Production of Documents, Set Three which sought discovery that violates California
Civil Code ti3295 (c)which provides that no pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted
with respect to evidence of the financial condition of defendant.
10 7. The parties participated in mediation on December 8, 2021 in an effort to resolve the
claims alleged in plaintiff s Complaint but were unable to reach an agreement.
12 8. On February 28, 2022, ten months after defendant filed her Answer to the original
13 Complaint, plaintiff s counsel e-mailed me a copy of the Amended Complaint along with a
14 request that defendant stipulate to the filing.
15 9. Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint sought to amend the address of
16 plaintiff counsel's office, to change "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout, and added TWO
17 new causes of action- one for False Personation and one for Conversion.
18 10. True and correct copies of PlaintiA's proposed First Amended Complaint and the
19 red line version of the proposed First Amended Complaint that were sent to me on February 28,
20 2022 are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
21 11. On March 3, 2022, I replied to plaintiff's counsel as follows, "I can stipulate to the
22 change of address and changing "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout but I can not stipulate
23 to you filing an amended complaint with two new causes of action because I believe there will
24 be meaningful prejudice to my client."
25 12. On March 7, 2022 plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File and Amended
26 Complaint.
27
28
DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. CALERO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT xxxxx
xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS -2-
I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true an correct. Executed
11'4" dy fAp'1,20221 ~ 2 1,CA.~
Dated: April 14, 2022
ONY J. CALERO, ESQ.
ttorney for Defendant
xxxxx xxxx
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. CALERO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT xxxxx
xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS -3-
EXHIBIT A
xxxxx xxxxxx v. xxxxx xxxx
San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 20-CIV-003890
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.corn
4 marnold@nolanheimann.corn
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
xxxxx xxxxxx
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 xxxxx xxxxxx, an individual, ) Case No.:
)
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 (j 528.5)
)
16 ) (4) CONVERSION
)
17 ) (5) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
)
)
19
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx ("Dr. xxxxxx"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, alleges upon
knowledge as to himself and his own acts and alleges upon information and belief as to all other matters,
brings this Complaint:
27 THE PARTIES
28 1. Plaintiff Dr. xxxxxx, an individual, is a resident of San Mateo County, California,
PIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2. Defendant xxxxx xxxx (" Defendant" ), an individual, is a resident of Cleveland, Ohio.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant harassed Dr.
xxxxxx while he resided in California and impugned Dr. xxxxxx's medical career which is centered in
California. The brunt of the harm, in terms both of Dr. xxxxxx*s emotional distress and the injury to his
professional reputation, was suffered in California. In addition, several of Defendant's acts of
harassment included sending defamatory letters to medical professionals at Stanford University.
4. Venue is proper in this county because Dr. xxxxxx is a resident of San Mateo County, and
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims pleaded herein occurred in this
10 County.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
12 5. Dr. xxxxxx is currently a clinical scholar in the Ophthalmology Deparlment at Stanford
13 University. Previously, Dr. xxxxxx was a physician at thc Johns Hopkins University Hospital where he
14 worked at the Wilmer Eye Institute as a senior resident physician in ophthalmology.
15 6. Dr. xxxxxx initially met Defendant through the online dating mobile application Bumble
16 in May 2019. In June and July 2019, Dr. xxxxxx and Defendant briefly dated.
17 7. In November 2019, Bumble disabled Dr. xxxxxx's account, purportedly for violating its
18 terms. The following month, December 2019, attacks on Dr. xxxxxx's online presence escalated:
19 ~ Instagram disabled Dr. xxxxxx's account purportedly for violation of its community
20 terms;
21 ~ Facebook disabled Dr. xxxxxx's account because he was purportedly deceased;
22 ~ Someone logged into Dr. xxxxxx's Netflix account from Nevada;
23 ~ Dr. xxxxxx's Linkedln account was disabled as someone reported him deceased;
24 ~ Dr. xxxxxx received an email from Bank of America informing him that his bank account
25 was locked due to numerous password attempts;
26 ~ Dr. xxxxxx's Venmo account ceased working because he was reported as deceased.
27 Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing attacks on
28 his online presence.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
8. On December 23, 2019, the Wilmer Eye Institute Patient Relations received an email
from clndiscoveiy@gmail.corn claiming to be a patient named "Caroline N.", reporting that Dr. xxxxxx
was very rude as a physician. The same day, Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Dr. xxxxxx's future supervisor at
Stanford, received an email from clndiscoveiy gmail.corn, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx cheated on a test in
college. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing
emails.
9. On January 25, 2020, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute, Dr. Thomas
Johnson, received an email from Reportsafety39@gmail.corn, in which the sender claimed to be a work
colleague of Dr. xxxxxx's and alleged that Dr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk recently. Dr.
10 xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing emaiL
10. On January 25, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a notice from Google, stating that someone
12 was trying to close his Gmail account because Dr. xxxxxx was purportedly deceased. Dr. xxxxxx is
13 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing act.
14 11. On January 31, 2020, one of the Retina Fellow physicians at Duke University Medical
15 School, Dr. Frank Brodie, received a physical letter to his home address, purportedly from Johns
16 Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations by
17 entering medical charts of supervisors and peers, and that Dr. xxxxxx had also been involved in drug use
18 and was currently in a remediation program. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was
19 responsible for sending the letter.
20 12. On February 3, 2020, Dr. Huy Nguyen and Dr. Natalia Callaway, both vitreoretinal
21 fellows at Stanford University, and Dr. Malini Veerappan, an ophthalmology resident at Stanford
22 University applying into retina, and Dr. Carolyn Pan, a vitreoretinal surgeon from Stanford University,
23 received physical letters, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that
24 Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and
25 believes that Defendant was responsible for sending these letters.
26 13. On February 3, 2020, Dr. Fasika Woreta, Dr. xxxxxx's program director and direct
27 supervisor at Johns Hopkins University, also received a physical letter, purportedly from a work
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
colleague of Dr. xxxxxx's that Dr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk recently. Dr. xxxxxx is
informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
14. On February 5, 2020, Dr. Michael Ammar, a vitreoretinal fellow at the Wills Eye
Hospital in Philadelphia also received a physical letter, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer
Chris Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug
use. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
15. On February 6, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a package in the mail at his home address that
was filled with feces. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending
the feces.
10 16. On February 7, 2020, Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the Dean of Graduate Medical Education at
Johns Hopkins University, received a physical letter, from someone claiming to be a medical student
12 who worked with Dr. xxxxxx, stating that Dr. xxxxxx was demeaning. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and
13 believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
14 17. On or about February 7, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a phone call from Ashford University,
15 an online university, because someone provided it with his cell number and claimed Dr. xxxxxx was
interested in Ashford's online courses. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was
17 responsible for the foregoing.
18 18. On February 8, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a phone call &om WeBuyandgellTimeshares
19 because someone provided it with Dr. xxxxxx's cell number and claimed Dr. xxxxxx was interested in its
20 products. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for foregoing.
21 19. On February 8, 2020, Dr. Durga Borkar, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Duke University,
22 received a physical letter at her home address, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris
23 Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr.
24 xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
25 20. On February 14, 2020, Dr. Cindy Cai, a vitreoretinal fellow at Duke University, received
26 a physical letter at her home address, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan,
27 alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is
28 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
21. On February 15, 2020, at approximately 11:40 p.m., Defendant came to Dr. xxxxxx's
apartment building. Because she did not have a key, Defendant loitered in front of the main entrance for
approximately 25 minutes, until she was let in by a resident who was walking out.
22. At 12:06 a.m. on February 16, 2020, Defendant attempted to use the elevator in Dr.
xxxxxx's apartment building, but was unable to do so, because the elevator requires a security fob.
Defendant then loitered in the lobby for approximately 15 minutes, until a resident used his fob to give
Defendant access to the elevator to Dr. xxxxxx's floor. Defendant then approached Dr. xxxxxx's
apartment, attempted to open the door, and, upon realizing it was locked, banged repeatedly on the door
and called Dr. xxxxxx three times.
10 23, Dr. xxxxxx called security, who escorted Defendant out of the building and told her to
leave the premises. Defendant attempted to re-enter the building through another entrance using the
12 parking garage elevator. At this time, a police officer was already at Dr. xxxxxx's apartment taking his
13 statement when he was notified the Defendant had tried to enter the building again. The officer went to
question Defendant at which point she provided the police with a false name and identity.
15 24, On February 27, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx obtained a Temporary Protective Order from the
16 District Court of Maryland, Baltimore City. Defendant, however, moved from Baltimore to Cleveland,
17 in order to evade service, and the TPO expired on August 27, 2020, despite several attempts of service
18 by the local sheriff.
19 25. Notwithstanding, Defendant's harassment and defamation of Dr. xxxxxx continued
20 unabated.
21 26. In or about May 2020, Defendant published private information about Dr. xxxxxx on
22 Craigslist, including his phone number and email address. In addition, Defendant contacted funeral
23 homes, doctors'ffices, universities, pest control companies, mold remediation companies, banks, and
24 insurance companies, pretending to be Dr. xxxxxx and inquiring about their services. Consequently, Dr.
25 xxxxxx received dozens of unwanted phone calls and emails I'rom strangers, responding to Defendant's
26 fraudulent inquiries.
27 27. Also, in or about May 2020, Defendant purchased a life insurance policy in Dr. xxxxxx's
name, with Dr. xxxxxx's mother named as the beneficiary.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
28. On June 17, 2020, counsel for Dr. xxxxxx sent Defendant a Cease and Desist letter and a
copy of the TPO, the receipt of which was acknowledged by counsel for Defendant. Although counsel
for Defendant represented that Defendant would comply with the demands in the Cease and Desist
letter, Defendant, in fact, failed to do so.
29. At first, Defendant limited her harassment of Defendant to attacking his friends and
colleagues, including
a. July 4 and August 30, 2020: Defendant reported to Instagram that a close friend of Dr.
xxxxxx's was deceased in order to close their account;
b. Beginning in June 2020: Defendant began posting I-star reviews online of Dr. xxxxxx's
10 program director and direct supervisor at Johns Hopkins University on multiple websites.
30 Defendant soon directed her harassment back to Dr. xxxxxx, including:
12 a. August 20, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Hinge to ban Dr. xxxxxx for
13 purportedly violating its terms of service;
14 b. August 24, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Coffee Meets Bagel to ban Dr.
15 xxxxxx for purportedly violating its terms of service. According to a representative of
16 Coffee Meets Bagel, Dr. xxxxxx's account was suspended on public safety grounds
17 because Defendant "made some very disturbing and libelous claims" against Dr. xxxxxx;
18 c. August 26, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Bumble to ban Dr. xxxxxx for
19 purportedly violating its terms of service.
20 31 During the pendency of this this action, Defendant's harassment has continued,
21 including:
22 a. April 28, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx's father on
23 HealthGrades;
24 b. November 21, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx's sister on
25 HealthGrades;
26 c. December 20, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx on WebMD, as
27 well eight other one-star reviews;
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
d. December 29, 2021: Defendant again caused the online dating site Hinge to ban Dr.
xxxxxx;
e. February 22, 2022: Defendant posted a false and defamatory one-star review on
HealthGrades regarding Dr. xxxxxx.
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Civil Harassment)
32. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
33. As described herein, Defendant has engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which
10 was to alarm and/or harass Dr. xxxxxx,
34. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has reasonably feared for his safety,
12 35. As part of Defendant's pattern of conduct, she made a credible threat with the intent to
13 place Dr. xxxxxx in reasonable fear for his safety.
14 36. Although Dr. xxxxxx clearly and definitively demanded that Defendant cease and abate
15 her pattern of conduct, Defendant persisted in her pattern of conduct.
37. In addition, Defendant violated a legally valid restraining order, the existence of which
17 she was aware of and acknowledged in writing.
18 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered
19 general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
20 39. As described herein, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx's
21 rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.
22 40. Unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, Defendant will continue to harass Dr.
23 xxxxxx. By reason of the foregoing, Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctions
24 enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all persons acting in concert with her, from directly or
25 indirectly contacting Dr. xxxxxx, impersonating Dr. xxxxxx, and/or harassing or stalking Dr, xxxxxx.
26
27
28
FIRST AMElVDED COIIIPLAINT
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation)
41. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
42, As described herein, Defendant sent to letters containing false statements of fact to the
Wilmer Eye Institute Patient Relations at John Hopkins University; Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Dr.
xxxxxx's future supervisor at Stanford University; Dr. Thomas Johnson, the Chief Resident of the
Wilmer Eye Institute; Dr. Frank Brodie, a Retina Fellow physician at Duke University Medical School;
Dr. Huy Nguyen and Dr. Natalia Callaway, both vitreoretinal fellows at Stanford University; Dr. Malini
10 Veerappan, an ophthalmology resident at Stanford University applying into retina; Dr. Carolyn Pan, a
vitreoretinal surgeon at Stanford University; Dr. Fasika Woreta, Dr. xxxxxx's program director and
12 direct supervisor at Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Michael Ammar, a vitreoretinal fellow at the Wills
13 Eye Hospital in Philadelphia; Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the Dean of Graduate Medical Education and Johns
14 Hopkins University; Dr. Durga Borkar, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Duke University; Dr. Cindy Cai, a
15 vitreoretinal fellow at Duke University; and the dating websites Hinge and Coffee Meets Bagel.
16 43. The false statements of fact included inter alia:
17 a. Dr. xxxxxx is rude as a physician and demeaning to patients;
18 b. Dr. xxxxxx cheated on a test in college;
19 c. Dr. xxxxxx showed up at work intoxicated;
20 d. Dr. xxxxxx violated HIPAA regulations by entering medical charts of supervisors and
21 peers;
22 e. Dr. xxxxxx was previously involved in drug use and was currently in a remediation
23 program;
24 f. Dr. xxxxxx posed a physical threat to the safety of women on the dating sites Hinge and
25 Coffee Meets Bagel.
26 44. The statements in the foregoing paragraph, which are referred to collectively herein as
27 the "False Statements," are unprivileged, false, and defamatory. The False Statements are of and
28 concerning Dr. xxxxxx.
FIRST AMENDED COIIIFLAINT
45. The False Statements were made with actual malice in that they werc made with
knowledge of their falsity and/or in reckless disregard for the truth.
46. The False Statements exposed Dr. xxxxxx to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy
and/or harmed Dr. xxxxxx in his trade or profession.
47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered
general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
48, In creating and disseminating the False Statements, Defendant acted with malice or
reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx's rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.
49. Unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, Defendant will republish, repeat and
10 continue to disseminate the False Statements to the continuing injury of Dr. xxxxxx. Such continued
republication, repetition, and dissemination of the False Statements will cause irreparable harm to Dr.
12 xxxxxx. Dr. xxxxxx lacks an adequate remedy at law insofar as damages will be very difficult to
13 calculate for such on-going injuries. By reason of the foregoing, Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to preliminary
14 and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all persons acting in concert with
15 her, from republishing, repeating, distributing or otherwise disseminating the False Statements set forth
16 herein.
17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (False Personation (Pen. Code (j(j528.5))
19 50. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
20 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
21 51. Between December 11, 2019 and January 2, 2020, Defendant falsely impersonated Dr.
22 xxxxxx's sister in correspondence with representatives of PayPal.
23 52. While falsely impersonating Dr. xxxxxx's sister, Defendant delivered to PayPal a
24 fraudulent death certificate she created that purported Dr. xxxxxx to be deceased.
25 53. Defendant's impersonation was credible, as PayPal believed that Defendant was Dr.
26 xxxxxx's sister. As a result of Defendant's false impersonation, and at Defendant's request, PayPal
27 closed Dr. xxxxxx's account and transferred all money in his account to the state.
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
54. Defendant knowingly and without consent, credibly impersonated Dr. xxxxxx's sister by
electronic means for purposes ofharming Dr. xxxxxx.
55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered general
and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
56. As described herein, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx's
rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages.
7 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion)
57. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
10 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
58. At all relevant times, Dr. xxxxxx had ownership rights in, or the right to possess, money
12 in his PayPal account. This is a specific sum capable of identification through an accounting of Dr.
13 xxxxxx's PayPal account.
14 59. Defendant wrongfully exercised dominion over money in Dr. xxxxxx's PayPal account.
15 60. Defendant intentionally and substantially interfered with Dr. xxxxxx's rights by
16 contacting PayPal under the guise of being Dr. xxxxxx's sister, reporting Dr. xxxxxx dead, and
17 requesting that Dr. xxxxxx's money be transferred to the state.
61. Dr. xxxxxx did not consent to Defendant's actions as described above
19 62. Dr. xxxxxx suffered harm through Defendant's actions.
20 63. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. xxxxxx's harm.
21 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct as above-described, Dr. xxxxxx
22 has been damaged in a sum which is presently unascertained. Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to actual damages
23 sustained as a result of Defendant's wrongful acts, including sums sufficient to compensate Dr. xxxxxx
24 for all harm suffered as a result of Defendants'onduct, and punitive damages.
25 65. In committing the acts alleged, Defendant acted with full knowledge of, and with reckless
26 disregard for, the consequences and damages inflicted upon Dr. xxxxxx, and Defendant's conduct was
27 willful, oppressive and malicious, such as to entitle Dr. xxxxxx an award of punitive damages in an
28 amount to punish Defendant and deter Defendant and to serve as an example to others similarly situated.
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
66. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
67. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein is extreme and outrageous and is beyond the
bounds of that tolerated in a decent society.
68. Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to cause Dr. xxxxxx
severe emotional distress, or at a minimum, with reckless disregard as to whether it would cause severe
emotional distress.
10 69. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered severe emotional distress.
70. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. xxxxxx's severe emotional
12 distress.
13 71. Defendant's actions allcgcd hcrcin were done with malice, fraud, oppression, and in
14 reckless disregard of Dr. xxxxxx's rights.
15 72. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has incurred and will continue to incur
16 damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
17
18 WHEREFORE, Dr. xxxxxx prays for judgment against Defendant as follows;
19 1. For general and special damages according to proof, including inter alia compensation
20 for the time and money expended in pursuit of property converted by Defendant;
21 2. For punitive damages against Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish or set an
22 example of Defendant and to deter such conduct in the future, the exact amount of such
23 damages subject to proof at the time of trial;
24 For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all
25 persons acting in concert with her, &om directly or indirectly contacting Dr. xxxxxx,
26 impersonating Dr. xxxxxx, and/or harassing or stalking Dr. xxxxxx;
27 For preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining and enjoining Defendant, and all
28 persons acting in concert with her, from republishing, repeating, distributing, or
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
otherwise disseminating the False Statements set forth herein;
5. For all costs of suit incurred herein;
6. For interest at the maximum legal rate; and
7. For such other and finther relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper.
Dated: February 28, 2022 NOLAN HEIMANN, LLP
By: we]
Jordyn,Msman
Attotneys for Plaintiff
10 k~apil xxxxxx
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Jordan Susman, Esq. (SBN 246116)
1 Margo Arnold, Esq. (SBN 278288)
NOLAN HEIMANN LLP
2 44Q$ 16000 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 8201200
Encino, California 91423
3 Telephone: (818) 574-5710
E-mail:jsusmaninolanheimann.corn
4 marnold nolanheimann.corn
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
xxxxx xxxxxx
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 xxxxx xxxxxx, an individual, ) Case No.:
)
Plaintiff, )
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
12 vs.
(I) CIVIL HARASSMENT
13 xxxxx xxxx, an individual,
(2) DEFAMATION
14 Defendant. )
) (3) FALSE PERSONATION (PEN.
15 CODE 8 528.51
)
)
16 CONVERSION
) (4)
)
17 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
(5)
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
18
)
19
20
21
22
23
24 Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx ("MFDr. xxxxxx"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, alleges upon
knowledge as to himself and his own acts and alleges upon information and belief as to all other matters,
brings this Complaint:
27 THE PARTIES
28 1. Plaintiff MFDr. xxxxxx, an individual, is a resident of San Mateo County, California.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2. Defendant xxxxx xxxx (" Defendant'*), an individual, is a resident of Cleveland, Ohio.
2 PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant harassed MFDr.
xxxxxx while he resided in California and impugned MFDr. xxxxxx's medical career which is centered in
California. The brunt of the harm, in terms both of MEDI. xxxxxx's emotional distress and the injury to
his professional reputation, was suffered in California. In addition, several of Defendant's acts of
harassment included sending defamatory letters to madialmedical professionals at Stanford University.
4. Venue is proper in this county because h4FDr. xxxxxx is a resident of San Mateo County,
and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims pleaded herein occurred in this
10 County.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
12 5. MPDr. xxxxxx is currently a clinical scholar in the Ophthalmology Department at
13 Stanford University. Previously, MFDr. xxxxxx was a physician at the Johns Hopkins University
14 Hospital where he worked at the Wilmer Eye Institute as a senior resident physician in ophthalmology.
15 6. MFDr. xxxxxx initially met Defendant through the online dating mobile application
16 Bumble in May 2019. In June and July 2019, MFDr. xxxxxx and Defendant briefly dated.
17 7. In November 2019, Bumble disabled h4FDI. xxxxxx's account, purportedly for violating
18 its terms. The following month, December 2019, attacks on MFDr. xxxxxx's online presence escalated:
19 ~ Instagram disabled MFDr. xxxxxx's account purportedly for violation of its community
20 terms;
21 ~ Facebook disabled MFDr. xxxxxx's account because he was purportedly deceased;
22 ~ Someone logged into MFDr. xxxxxx's Netflix account from Nevada;
23 ~ MFDr. xxxxxx's LinkedIn account was disabled as someone reported him deceased;
~ M+Dr. xxxxxx received an email from Bank of America informing him that his bank
25 account was locked due to numerous password attempts;
26 ~ MFDr. xxxxxx's Venmo account ceased working because he was reported as deceased.
27 MFDr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing attacks
28 on his online presence.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
8. On December 23, 2019, the Wilmer Eye Institute Patient Relations received an email
from clndiscovery gmail.corn claiming to be a patient named "Caroline N.", reporting that MFDr.
xxxxxx was very rude as a physician. The same day, Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, MFDT. xxxxxx's future
supervisor at Stanford, received an email from clndiscovery@gmail.corn, alleging that MFDT. xxxxxx
cheated on a test in college. MFDr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for
each of the foregoing emails.
9. On January 25, 2020, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute, Dr. Thomas
Johnson, received an email from Reportsafety39@gmail.corn, in which the sender claimed to be a work
colleague of MFDr. xxxxxx's and alleged that h4FDr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk
10 recently. MFDr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing email,
10. On January 25, 2020, MFDr. xxxxxx received a notice from Google, stating that someone
12 was trying to close his Gmail account because MFDr. xxxxxx was purportedly deceased. MFDr. xxxxxx is
13 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing act.
11. On January 31, 2020, one o
Preview
TRAVIS H. WHITFIELD SBN 195108 ANTHONY J. CALERO SBN: 194454 Law Offices of Travis H. Whitfield, Inc. 2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 138 San Jose, California 95131 Telephone: (408) 879-9039 Facsimile: (408) 879-9327 Attorney for Defendant xxxxx xxxx SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 ) CASE NO.:20-CIV-03890 12, ) xxxxx xxxxxx ) 13 ) DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. Plaintiff, ) CALERO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 14 ) xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 15 ) AMEND COMPLAINT ) 16 xxxxx xxxx ) ) Date: April 27, 2022 Defendant. ) Time: 2:00 p.m. ) Dept.: 2 (Two) ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 22 I, ANTHONY J. CALERO, declare: 23 1. Iam the attorney of record for defendant, xxxxx xxxx, in thc above referenced 24 lawsuit. 25 2. Plaintiff filed his original Complaint containing causes of action for Civil Harassment, 26 Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on September 10, 2020. 27 3. Defendant filed her Answer to plaintiff s lawsuit for Civil Harassment and DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. CALERO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS -I- Defamation on or about April 29, 2021. 4. The parties have been engaged in written discovery for the last 12 months. 5. In the past 12 months plaintiffhas served defendant with two sets of Form Interrogatories, three sets of Request for Production of Documents (totaling 36 separate requests), two sets of Special Interrogatories, and 71 Requests for Admissions. 6. Defendant has provided verified responses to all of plaintiff s discovery except for Request for Production of Documents, Set Three which sought discovery that violates California Civil Code ti3295 (c)which provides that no pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to evidence of the financial condition of defendant. 10 7. The parties participated in mediation on December 8, 2021 in an effort to resolve the claims alleged in plaintiff s Complaint but were unable to reach an agreement. 12 8. On February 28, 2022, ten months after defendant filed her Answer to the original 13 Complaint, plaintiff s counsel e-mailed me a copy of the Amended Complaint along with a 14 request that defendant stipulate to the filing. 15 9. Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint sought to amend the address of 16 plaintiff counsel's office, to change "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout, and added TWO 17 new causes of action- one for False Personation and one for Conversion. 18 10. True and correct copies of PlaintiA's proposed First Amended Complaint and the 19 red line version of the proposed First Amended Complaint that were sent to me on February 28, 20 2022 are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 21 11. On March 3, 2022, I replied to plaintiff's counsel as follows, "I can stipulate to the 22 change of address and changing "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout but I can not stipulate 23 to you filing an amended complaint with two new causes of action because I believe there will 24 be meaningful prejudice to my client." 25 12. On March 7, 2022 plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File and Amended 26 Complaint. 27 28 DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. CALERO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS -2- I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true an correct. Executed 11'4" dy fAp'1,20221 ~ 2 1,CA.~ Dated: April 14, 2022 ONY J. CALERO, ESQ. ttorney for Defendant xxxxx xxxx 10 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. CALERO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS -3- EXHIBIT A xxxxx xxxxxx v. xxxxx xxxx San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 20-CIV-003890 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.corn 4 marnold@nolanheimann.corn 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 xxxxx xxxxxx, an individual, ) Case No.: ) 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 (j 528.5) ) 16 ) (4) CONVERSION ) 17 ) (5) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ) ) 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx ("Dr. xxxxxx"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, alleges upon knowledge as to himself and his own acts and alleges upon information and belief as to all other matters, brings this Complaint: 27 THE PARTIES 28 1. Plaintiff Dr. xxxxxx, an individual, is a resident of San Mateo County, California, PIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2. Defendant xxxxx xxxx (" Defendant" ), an individual, is a resident of Cleveland, Ohio. PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant harassed Dr. xxxxxx while he resided in California and impugned Dr. xxxxxx's medical career which is centered in California. The brunt of the harm, in terms both of Dr. xxxxxx*s emotional distress and the injury to his professional reputation, was suffered in California. In addition, several of Defendant's acts of harassment included sending defamatory letters to medical professionals at Stanford University. 4. Venue is proper in this county because Dr. xxxxxx is a resident of San Mateo County, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims pleaded herein occurred in this 10 County. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 12 5. Dr. xxxxxx is currently a clinical scholar in the Ophthalmology Deparlment at Stanford 13 University. Previously, Dr. xxxxxx was a physician at thc Johns Hopkins University Hospital where he 14 worked at the Wilmer Eye Institute as a senior resident physician in ophthalmology. 15 6. Dr. xxxxxx initially met Defendant through the online dating mobile application Bumble 16 in May 2019. In June and July 2019, Dr. xxxxxx and Defendant briefly dated. 17 7. In November 2019, Bumble disabled Dr. xxxxxx's account, purportedly for violating its 18 terms. The following month, December 2019, attacks on Dr. xxxxxx's online presence escalated: 19 ~ Instagram disabled Dr. xxxxxx's account purportedly for violation of its community 20 terms; 21 ~ Facebook disabled Dr. xxxxxx's account because he was purportedly deceased; 22 ~ Someone logged into Dr. xxxxxx's Netflix account from Nevada; 23 ~ Dr. xxxxxx's Linkedln account was disabled as someone reported him deceased; 24 ~ Dr. xxxxxx received an email from Bank of America informing him that his bank account 25 was locked due to numerous password attempts; 26 ~ Dr. xxxxxx's Venmo account ceased working because he was reported as deceased. 27 Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing attacks on 28 his online presence. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 8. On December 23, 2019, the Wilmer Eye Institute Patient Relations received an email from clndiscoveiy@gmail.corn claiming to be a patient named "Caroline N.", reporting that Dr. xxxxxx was very rude as a physician. The same day, Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Dr. xxxxxx's future supervisor at Stanford, received an email from clndiscoveiy gmail.corn, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx cheated on a test in college. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing emails. 9. On January 25, 2020, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute, Dr. Thomas Johnson, received an email from Reportsafety39@gmail.corn, in which the sender claimed to be a work colleague of Dr. xxxxxx's and alleged that Dr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk recently. Dr. 10 xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing emaiL 10. On January 25, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a notice from Google, stating that someone 12 was trying to close his Gmail account because Dr. xxxxxx was purportedly deceased. Dr. xxxxxx is 13 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing act. 14 11. On January 31, 2020, one of the Retina Fellow physicians at Duke University Medical 15 School, Dr. Frank Brodie, received a physical letter to his home address, purportedly from Johns 16 Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations by 17 entering medical charts of supervisors and peers, and that Dr. xxxxxx had also been involved in drug use 18 and was currently in a remediation program. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was 19 responsible for sending the letter. 20 12. On February 3, 2020, Dr. Huy Nguyen and Dr. Natalia Callaway, both vitreoretinal 21 fellows at Stanford University, and Dr. Malini Veerappan, an ophthalmology resident at Stanford 22 University applying into retina, and Dr. Carolyn Pan, a vitreoretinal surgeon from Stanford University, 23 received physical letters, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that 24 Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and 25 believes that Defendant was responsible for sending these letters. 26 13. On February 3, 2020, Dr. Fasika Woreta, Dr. xxxxxx's program director and direct 27 supervisor at Johns Hopkins University, also received a physical letter, purportedly from a work FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT colleague of Dr. xxxxxx's that Dr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk recently. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 14. On February 5, 2020, Dr. Michael Ammar, a vitreoretinal fellow at the Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia also received a physical letter, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 15. On February 6, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a package in the mail at his home address that was filled with feces. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the feces. 10 16. On February 7, 2020, Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the Dean of Graduate Medical Education at Johns Hopkins University, received a physical letter, from someone claiming to be a medical student 12 who worked with Dr. xxxxxx, stating that Dr. xxxxxx was demeaning. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and 13 believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 14 17. On or about February 7, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a phone call from Ashford University, 15 an online university, because someone provided it with his cell number and claimed Dr. xxxxxx was interested in Ashford's online courses. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was 17 responsible for the foregoing. 18 18. On February 8, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx received a phone call &om WeBuyandgellTimeshares 19 because someone provided it with Dr. xxxxxx's cell number and claimed Dr. xxxxxx was interested in its 20 products. Dr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for foregoing. 21 19. On February 8, 2020, Dr. Durga Borkar, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Duke University, 22 received a physical letter at her home address, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris 23 Buchanan, alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. 24 xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. 25 20. On February 14, 2020, Dr. Cindy Cai, a vitreoretinal fellow at Duke University, received 26 a physical letter at her home address, purportedly from Johns Hopkins Privacy Officer Chris Buchanan, 27 alleging that Dr. xxxxxx had violated HIPAA regulations and been involved in drug use. Dr. xxxxxx is 28 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for sending the letter. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 21. On February 15, 2020, at approximately 11:40 p.m., Defendant came to Dr. xxxxxx's apartment building. Because she did not have a key, Defendant loitered in front of the main entrance for approximately 25 minutes, until she was let in by a resident who was walking out. 22. At 12:06 a.m. on February 16, 2020, Defendant attempted to use the elevator in Dr. xxxxxx's apartment building, but was unable to do so, because the elevator requires a security fob. Defendant then loitered in the lobby for approximately 15 minutes, until a resident used his fob to give Defendant access to the elevator to Dr. xxxxxx's floor. Defendant then approached Dr. xxxxxx's apartment, attempted to open the door, and, upon realizing it was locked, banged repeatedly on the door and called Dr. xxxxxx three times. 10 23, Dr. xxxxxx called security, who escorted Defendant out of the building and told her to leave the premises. Defendant attempted to re-enter the building through another entrance using the 12 parking garage elevator. At this time, a police officer was already at Dr. xxxxxx's apartment taking his 13 statement when he was notified the Defendant had tried to enter the building again. The officer went to question Defendant at which point she provided the police with a false name and identity. 15 24, On February 27, 2020, Dr. xxxxxx obtained a Temporary Protective Order from the 16 District Court of Maryland, Baltimore City. Defendant, however, moved from Baltimore to Cleveland, 17 in order to evade service, and the TPO expired on August 27, 2020, despite several attempts of service 18 by the local sheriff. 19 25. Notwithstanding, Defendant's harassment and defamation of Dr. xxxxxx continued 20 unabated. 21 26. In or about May 2020, Defendant published private information about Dr. xxxxxx on 22 Craigslist, including his phone number and email address. In addition, Defendant contacted funeral 23 homes, doctors'ffices, universities, pest control companies, mold remediation companies, banks, and 24 insurance companies, pretending to be Dr. xxxxxx and inquiring about their services. Consequently, Dr. 25 xxxxxx received dozens of unwanted phone calls and emails I'rom strangers, responding to Defendant's 26 fraudulent inquiries. 27 27. Also, in or about May 2020, Defendant purchased a life insurance policy in Dr. xxxxxx's name, with Dr. xxxxxx's mother named as the beneficiary. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 28. On June 17, 2020, counsel for Dr. xxxxxx sent Defendant a Cease and Desist letter and a copy of the TPO, the receipt of which was acknowledged by counsel for Defendant. Although counsel for Defendant represented that Defendant would comply with the demands in the Cease and Desist letter, Defendant, in fact, failed to do so. 29. At first, Defendant limited her harassment of Defendant to attacking his friends and colleagues, including a. July 4 and August 30, 2020: Defendant reported to Instagram that a close friend of Dr. xxxxxx's was deceased in order to close their account; b. Beginning in June 2020: Defendant began posting I-star reviews online of Dr. xxxxxx's 10 program director and direct supervisor at Johns Hopkins University on multiple websites. 30 Defendant soon directed her harassment back to Dr. xxxxxx, including: 12 a. August 20, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Hinge to ban Dr. xxxxxx for 13 purportedly violating its terms of service; 14 b. August 24, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Coffee Meets Bagel to ban Dr. 15 xxxxxx for purportedly violating its terms of service. According to a representative of 16 Coffee Meets Bagel, Dr. xxxxxx's account was suspended on public safety grounds 17 because Defendant "made some very disturbing and libelous claims" against Dr. xxxxxx; 18 c. August 26, 2020: Defendant caused the online dating site Bumble to ban Dr. xxxxxx for 19 purportedly violating its terms of service. 20 31 During the pendency of this this action, Defendant's harassment has continued, 21 including: 22 a. April 28, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx's father on 23 HealthGrades; 24 b. November 21, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx's sister on 25 HealthGrades; 26 c. December 20, 2021: Defendant posted a one-star review of Dr. xxxxxx on WebMD, as 27 well eight other one-star reviews; 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT d. December 29, 2021: Defendant again caused the online dating site Hinge to ban Dr. xxxxxx; e. February 22, 2022: Defendant posted a false and defamatory one-star review on HealthGrades regarding Dr. xxxxxx. 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Civil Harassment) 32. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 33. As described herein, Defendant has engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which 10 was to alarm and/or harass Dr. xxxxxx, 34. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has reasonably feared for his safety, 12 35. As part of Defendant's pattern of conduct, she made a credible threat with the intent to 13 place Dr. xxxxxx in reasonable fear for his safety. 14 36. Although Dr. xxxxxx clearly and definitively demanded that Defendant cease and abate 15 her pattern of conduct, Defendant persisted in her pattern of conduct. 37. In addition, Defendant violated a legally valid restraining order, the existence of which 17 she was aware of and acknowledged in writing. 18 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered 19 general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 20 39. As described herein, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx's 21 rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages. 22 40. Unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, Defendant will continue to harass Dr. 23 xxxxxx. By reason of the foregoing, Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctions 24 enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all persons acting in concert with her, from directly or 25 indirectly contacting Dr. xxxxxx, impersonating Dr. xxxxxx, and/or harassing or stalking Dr, xxxxxx. 26 27 28 FIRST AMElVDED COIIIPLAINT 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation) 41. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 42, As described herein, Defendant sent to letters containing false statements of fact to the Wilmer Eye Institute Patient Relations at John Hopkins University; Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Dr. xxxxxx's future supervisor at Stanford University; Dr. Thomas Johnson, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute; Dr. Frank Brodie, a Retina Fellow physician at Duke University Medical School; Dr. Huy Nguyen and Dr. Natalia Callaway, both vitreoretinal fellows at Stanford University; Dr. Malini 10 Veerappan, an ophthalmology resident at Stanford University applying into retina; Dr. Carolyn Pan, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Stanford University; Dr. Fasika Woreta, Dr. xxxxxx's program director and 12 direct supervisor at Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Michael Ammar, a vitreoretinal fellow at the Wills 13 Eye Hospital in Philadelphia; Dr. Jessica Bienstock, the Dean of Graduate Medical Education and Johns 14 Hopkins University; Dr. Durga Borkar, a vitreoretinal surgeon at Duke University; Dr. Cindy Cai, a 15 vitreoretinal fellow at Duke University; and the dating websites Hinge and Coffee Meets Bagel. 16 43. The false statements of fact included inter alia: 17 a. Dr. xxxxxx is rude as a physician and demeaning to patients; 18 b. Dr. xxxxxx cheated on a test in college; 19 c. Dr. xxxxxx showed up at work intoxicated; 20 d. Dr. xxxxxx violated HIPAA regulations by entering medical charts of supervisors and 21 peers; 22 e. Dr. xxxxxx was previously involved in drug use and was currently in a remediation 23 program; 24 f. Dr. xxxxxx posed a physical threat to the safety of women on the dating sites Hinge and 25 Coffee Meets Bagel. 26 44. The statements in the foregoing paragraph, which are referred to collectively herein as 27 the "False Statements," are unprivileged, false, and defamatory. The False Statements are of and 28 concerning Dr. xxxxxx. FIRST AMENDED COIIIFLAINT 45. The False Statements were made with actual malice in that they werc made with knowledge of their falsity and/or in reckless disregard for the truth. 46. The False Statements exposed Dr. xxxxxx to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy and/or harmed Dr. xxxxxx in his trade or profession. 47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 48, In creating and disseminating the False Statements, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx's rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages. 49. Unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, Defendant will republish, repeat and 10 continue to disseminate the False Statements to the continuing injury of Dr. xxxxxx. Such continued republication, repetition, and dissemination of the False Statements will cause irreparable harm to Dr. 12 xxxxxx. Dr. xxxxxx lacks an adequate remedy at law insofar as damages will be very difficult to 13 calculate for such on-going injuries. By reason of the foregoing, Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to preliminary 14 and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all persons acting in concert with 15 her, from republishing, repeating, distributing or otherwise disseminating the False Statements set forth 16 herein. 17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (False Personation (Pen. Code (j(j528.5)) 19 50. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 20 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 21 51. Between December 11, 2019 and January 2, 2020, Defendant falsely impersonated Dr. 22 xxxxxx's sister in correspondence with representatives of PayPal. 23 52. While falsely impersonating Dr. xxxxxx's sister, Defendant delivered to PayPal a 24 fraudulent death certificate she created that purported Dr. xxxxxx to be deceased. 25 53. Defendant's impersonation was credible, as PayPal believed that Defendant was Dr. 26 xxxxxx's sister. As a result of Defendant's false impersonation, and at Defendant's request, PayPal 27 closed Dr. xxxxxx's account and transferred all money in his account to the state. 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 54. Defendant knowingly and without consent, credibly impersonated Dr. xxxxxx's sister by electronic means for purposes ofharming Dr. xxxxxx. 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 56. As described herein, Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for Dr. xxxxxx's rights, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages. 7 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion) 57. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 10 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 58. At all relevant times, Dr. xxxxxx had ownership rights in, or the right to possess, money 12 in his PayPal account. This is a specific sum capable of identification through an accounting of Dr. 13 xxxxxx's PayPal account. 14 59. Defendant wrongfully exercised dominion over money in Dr. xxxxxx's PayPal account. 15 60. Defendant intentionally and substantially interfered with Dr. xxxxxx's rights by 16 contacting PayPal under the guise of being Dr. xxxxxx's sister, reporting Dr. xxxxxx dead, and 17 requesting that Dr. xxxxxx's money be transferred to the state. 61. Dr. xxxxxx did not consent to Defendant's actions as described above 19 62. Dr. xxxxxx suffered harm through Defendant's actions. 20 63. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. xxxxxx's harm. 21 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct as above-described, Dr. xxxxxx 22 has been damaged in a sum which is presently unascertained. Dr. xxxxxx is entitled to actual damages 23 sustained as a result of Defendant's wrongful acts, including sums sufficient to compensate Dr. xxxxxx 24 for all harm suffered as a result of Defendants'onduct, and punitive damages. 25 65. In committing the acts alleged, Defendant acted with full knowledge of, and with reckless 26 disregard for, the consequences and damages inflicted upon Dr. xxxxxx, and Defendant's conduct was 27 willful, oppressive and malicious, such as to entitle Dr. xxxxxx an award of punitive damages in an 28 amount to punish Defendant and deter Defendant and to serve as an example to others similarly situated. 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 66. Dr. xxxxxx realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 67. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein is extreme and outrageous and is beyond the bounds of that tolerated in a decent society. 68. Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to cause Dr. xxxxxx severe emotional distress, or at a minimum, with reckless disregard as to whether it would cause severe emotional distress. 10 69. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has suffered severe emotional distress. 70. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. xxxxxx's severe emotional 12 distress. 13 71. Defendant's actions allcgcd hcrcin were done with malice, fraud, oppression, and in 14 reckless disregard of Dr. xxxxxx's rights. 15 72. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Dr. xxxxxx has incurred and will continue to incur 16 damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 17 18 WHEREFORE, Dr. xxxxxx prays for judgment against Defendant as follows; 19 1. For general and special damages according to proof, including inter alia compensation 20 for the time and money expended in pursuit of property converted by Defendant; 21 2. For punitive damages against Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish or set an 22 example of Defendant and to deter such conduct in the future, the exact amount of such 23 damages subject to proof at the time of trial; 24 For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining and restraining Defendant, and all 25 persons acting in concert with her, &om directly or indirectly contacting Dr. xxxxxx, 26 impersonating Dr. xxxxxx, and/or harassing or stalking Dr. xxxxxx; 27 For preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining and enjoining Defendant, and all 28 persons acting in concert with her, from republishing, repeating, distributing, or FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT otherwise disseminating the False Statements set forth herein; 5. For all costs of suit incurred herein; 6. For interest at the maximum legal rate; and 7. For such other and finther relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper. Dated: February 28, 2022 NOLAN HEIMANN, LLP By: we] Jordyn,Msman Attotneys for Plaintiff 10 k~apil xxxxxx 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Jordan Susman, Esq. (SBN 246116) 1 Margo Arnold, Esq. (SBN 278288) NOLAN HEIMANN LLP 2 44Q$ 16000 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 8201200 Encino, California 91423 3 Telephone: (818) 574-5710 E-mail:jsusmaninolanheimann.corn 4 marnold nolanheimann.corn 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 xxxxx xxxxxx, an individual, ) Case No.: ) Plaintiff, ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 12 vs. (I) CIVIL HARASSMENT 13 xxxxx xxxx, an individual, (2) DEFAMATION 14 Defendant. ) ) (3) FALSE PERSONATION (PEN. 15 CODE 8 528.51 ) ) 16 CONVERSION ) (4) ) 17 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF (5) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 18 ) 19 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxxx ("MFDr. xxxxxx"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, alleges upon knowledge as to himself and his own acts and alleges upon information and belief as to all other matters, brings this Complaint: 27 THE PARTIES 28 1. Plaintiff MFDr. xxxxxx, an individual, is a resident of San Mateo County, California. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2. Defendant xxxxx xxxx (" Defendant'*), an individual, is a resident of Cleveland, Ohio. 2 PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant harassed MFDr. xxxxxx while he resided in California and impugned MFDr. xxxxxx's medical career which is centered in California. The brunt of the harm, in terms both of MEDI. xxxxxx's emotional distress and the injury to his professional reputation, was suffered in California. In addition, several of Defendant's acts of harassment included sending defamatory letters to madialmedical professionals at Stanford University. 4. Venue is proper in this county because h4FDr. xxxxxx is a resident of San Mateo County, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims pleaded herein occurred in this 10 County. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 12 5. MPDr. xxxxxx is currently a clinical scholar in the Ophthalmology Department at 13 Stanford University. Previously, MFDr. xxxxxx was a physician at the Johns Hopkins University 14 Hospital where he worked at the Wilmer Eye Institute as a senior resident physician in ophthalmology. 15 6. MFDr. xxxxxx initially met Defendant through the online dating mobile application 16 Bumble in May 2019. In June and July 2019, MFDr. xxxxxx and Defendant briefly dated. 17 7. In November 2019, Bumble disabled h4FDI. xxxxxx's account, purportedly for violating 18 its terms. The following month, December 2019, attacks on MFDr. xxxxxx's online presence escalated: 19 ~ Instagram disabled MFDr. xxxxxx's account purportedly for violation of its community 20 terms; 21 ~ Facebook disabled MFDr. xxxxxx's account because he was purportedly deceased; 22 ~ Someone logged into MFDr. xxxxxx's Netflix account from Nevada; 23 ~ MFDr. xxxxxx's LinkedIn account was disabled as someone reported him deceased; ~ M+Dr. xxxxxx received an email from Bank of America informing him that his bank 25 account was locked due to numerous password attempts; 26 ~ MFDr. xxxxxx's Venmo account ceased working because he was reported as deceased. 27 MFDr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing attacks 28 on his online presence. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 8. On December 23, 2019, the Wilmer Eye Institute Patient Relations received an email from clndiscovery gmail.corn claiming to be a patient named "Caroline N.", reporting that MFDr. xxxxxx was very rude as a physician. The same day, Dr. Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, MFDT. xxxxxx's future supervisor at Stanford, received an email from clndiscovery@gmail.corn, alleging that MFDT. xxxxxx cheated on a test in college. MFDr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for each of the foregoing emails. 9. On January 25, 2020, the Chief Resident of the Wilmer Eye Institute, Dr. Thomas Johnson, received an email from Reportsafety39@gmail.corn, in which the sender claimed to be a work colleague of MFDr. xxxxxx's and alleged that h4FDr. xxxxxx had been showing up to work drunk 10 recently. MFDr. xxxxxx is informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing email, 10. On January 25, 2020, MFDr. xxxxxx received a notice from Google, stating that someone 12 was trying to close his Gmail account because MFDr. xxxxxx was purportedly deceased. MFDr. xxxxxx is 13 informed and believes that Defendant was responsible for the foregoing act. 11. On January 31, 2020, one o