wa aunon 10 W 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FREEDMAN + TAITELMAN, LLP. Bryan J, Freedman (State Bar No. 151990) bfieedman@fillp.com ER.GOPY Steven E. Formaker (State Bar No. 93906) s SOReRREP ‘Loerie sformaker@fillp.com "Banya Loe Angeles 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90067 DEC 01 2017 Telephone: (310) 201-0005 Facsimile: (310) 201-0045 Short R Carer, Execute OttcerClerk By Nancy Alvarez, Deputy Attomeys for Plaintiffs EMJAG PRODUCTIONS, INC., SCOTT LAMBERT, and ALEXANDRA MILCHAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EMJAG PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation; SCOTT LAMBERT, an individual; and ALEXANDRA MILCHAN, an individual, Cose No BC685 511 Unlimited Civil Case COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: Plaintiffs, 1, BREACH OF WRITTEN vs. CONTRACT; THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY LLC, a | Delaware limited liability company; and DOES | through 20, inclusive, 2. QUANTUM MERUIT; 3. NEGLIGENCE; AND Defendants. 4, FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT. Plaintiffs EMJAG Productions, Inc. (“EMJAG”), Scott Lambert (“Lambert”), and Alexandra Milchan (“Milchan”), as their causes of action against The Weinstein Company LLC (‘TWC”) and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Lambert and Milchan are a husband and wife team of accomplished Hollywood producers. They spent years developing a television project to be directed by noted director David . Russell (the “Project”). TWC agreed to purchase the valuable intellectual property that they had created for the Project and to hire Lambert and Milchan as producers for the Project. They were to be compensated for their work as producers on a pay-or-play basis. Because the Project was to be 1 ‘COMPLAINTi 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2B 24 28 26 27 28 filmed in New York, they would need to relocate to New York City. They uprooted their lives to accommodate the needs of the Project. 2. TWC partnered with Amazon Studios, LLC (“Amazon”) on the Project. Upon information and belief, Amazon provided essential financing for the Project. 3. TWC had lured Plaintiffs into a trap. Unknown to Plaintiffs, TWC’s former co- chairman, Harvey Weinstein, had engaged in multiple acts of sexual misconduct. This misconduct which TWC knew very well, but concealed from Plaintiffs — was effectively a ticking time bomb. In October 2017, the time bomb exploded with the revelation of Weinstein’s sordid history of sex abuse. The Project was one of its casualties, as Amazon, seeking to distance itself from Weinstein, withdrew from the Project. TWC then withheld the compensation that it had promised to pay to Plaintiffs. THE PARTIES 4, EMJAG is, and was at all relevant times, a corporation in good standing organized and existing under the laws of the State of California that maintains its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. EMJAG functions as a loan-out company for the services of Lambert and Milchan, 5. Lambert is, and was at all relevant times, an adult individual who resides in the | County of Los Angeles, State of California 6. Milchan is, and was at all relevant times, an adult individual who resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that TWC is, and was at all relevant times, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware that does business in the State of California and maintains an office within the County of Los Angeles, State of California. TWC was, until its reputation became tamished due to the sexual predation of one of its founders, a ‘major player in the production of motion pictures and television shows. 8. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of those defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sue such defendants under fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the fictitiously-named defendants participated in the 2 COMPLAINTSeow xa wrongful conduct hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to set forth the true names of the fictitiously-named defendants after they have been ascertained 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each defendant, in performing the acts and omissions alleged herein, was an agent, partner, joint venturer, or employee of each of the other defendants, acting within the course and scope of such relationship, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Written Contract) 10, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint. 11, For several years prior to 2016, Plaintiffs worked on developing the Project, The Project was to be a television crime drama series to be directed by David O, Russell. By the fall of 2016, the esteemed actors Robert De Niro and Julianne Moore were attached to the Project. TWC and Amazon committed to produce two seasons of the series at a reported cost of $160 million. Upon information and belief, Amazon provided essential financing for the Project. 12. In or about November 2016, Plaintiffs and Defendant TWC reached a verbal understanding that TWC would acquire the rights to the Project. Plaintiffs would be retained to act as producers for the Project. As it was envisioned that the Project would be filmed in New York, this would require Plaintiffs to relocate from their home in Los Angeles, California to New York. ‘They would have to remove their children from their schools in Los Angeles, and enroll them in new || schools in New York. | 13, After reaching the verbal understanding, Plaintiffs and TWC entered into negotiations | of the specific terms of the contract for TWC’s acquisition of the rights to the Project. 14. Ina November 28, 2016 e-mail that Plaintiffs’ transactional attorney sent to TWC’s president, David Glasser, Plaintiffs made a written offer to TWC that included the following material terms relating to Plaintiffs’ compensation: (2) A.$250,000 development fee, 100% of which would be payable to Plaintiffs immediately. uw COMPLAINT() _ Anexecutive producer deal paying Lambert $50,000 per episode, on a play- or-pay basis with the same minimum number of episodes as the principal cast. pi ipé (©) Anexecutive producer deal paying Milchan $50,000 per episode, on a play- or-pay basis with the same minimum number of episodes s the principal cast (@) Back-end compensation to Lambert and Milchan of not less than 1.5 points apiece (i.., 3 points for the two of them combined) based upon modified adjusted gross receipts. (©) A travel allowance for reasonable travel when required, which was to cover reasonable number of flights to and from Los Angeles per season, (® Provision of a car and driver when Lambert and/or Milchan were working in New York. (g) A logo credit for Lambert. (h) —Anoffice and an assistant for Milchan at TWC’s offices in New York 15. Glasser acknowledged receipt of the November 28, 2016 e-mail and promised to respond “shortly.” In the expectation that a contract would be formalized shortly thereafter, | Plaintiffs continued to work diligently on the Project. However, months passed before TWC provided its response to Plaintiffs’ offer. 16. Finally, on May 2, 2017, Glasser replied to the November 28, 2016 e-mail with an e- || mail of his own. In that e-mail, Glasser confirmed in writing TWC’s agreement as to the terms controlled by TWC, but noted that back-end points were controlled by David O, Russell. 17. Plaintiffs thereafter negotiated with representatives of David O. Russell on their back-end compensation. On June 20, 2017, by means of an exchange of e-mails, the parties agreed in writing that Plaintiffs’ back-end compensation would be 1.5% of 100% of modified adjusted gross receipts (defined on a most favored nations basis), reducible pro rata if necessary to accommodate additional star cast (that is, beyond Robert De Niro and Julianne Moore). 18. The foregoing e-mail exchanges constituted a written contract between TWC and Plaintiffs (the “Contract”). wi 4 COMPLAINT10 ul 12 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19. The principal cast members for the Project were guaranteed a minimum of twenty episodes of the series. Because Plaintiffs’ guarantees were tied to those of the principal cast ‘members, they were likewise guaranteed that their contractual executive producer compensation of $50,000 apiece per episode would be payable for a minimum of 20 episodes. 20. Plaintiffs performed all conditions to be performed by them pursuant to the Contract, except to the extent that such performance was excused by Defendants’ actions. Among other things, the performance included Plaintiffs’ execution of documentation assigning their intellectual property rights in the Project to an entity affiliated with TWC. 21. In October 2017, Harvey Weinstein, who was one of the co-founders of TWC, was revealed to have engaged in a pervasive pattern of sexual abuse. Upon the revelation of this sordid pattern, Amazon withdrew from the Project. Amazon’s withdrawal resulted in the cancellation of the Project. 22. After Amazon withdrew, TWC ceased performing its obligations under the Contract. TWC has breached the Contract by, among other things, failing to pay Plaintiffs any of their executive producer compensation, failing to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonable travel expenses between Los Angeles and New York, failing to provide Plaintiff’ with a car and a driver while they were in New York, and failing to provide Milehan with an office and an assistant. 23. Asa result of Defendants’ breaches of the Contract, Plaintiffs have suffered damages well in excess of $2,000,000, the exact amount of which has not yet been. ascertained, but which shall be proven upon the trial of this action SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Quantum Meruit) 24. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each and every allegation of Paragraphs | through 23 of this Complaint. 25. Between November 2016 and October 2017, Plaintiffs performed services for Defendants in connection with the development of the Project, at Defendants’ special request Defendants knew that these services were being provided and promised to pay for them. Defendant accepted, used, and enjoyed the services provided by Plaintiffs. 5 COMPLAINT10 uN 12 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26. Defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to pay Plaintifis for the services that they provided. 27. Plaintiffs have demanded payment for their services, but Defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to pay for the services rendered by Plaintiffs, 28. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the amount of the reasonable value of the services that they provided to Defendants, according to proof. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligence) 29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 30, Harvey Weinstein (“Weinstein”) is one of the founders of TWC, and until October 2017 was TWC’s co-chairman and an employee of TWC. At all material times, Weinstein functioned as the public face of TWC. As a result, TWC was widely associated with Weinstein’s | persona, 31. Upon information and belief, beginning long before TWC’s founding in 2005 and continuing into 2017, Weinstein engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse of many of the actresses and other women whom he encountered while conducting business, Weinstein pattern of abuse was so reprehensible that, when it became public knowledge, TWC’s involvement in a motion picture or television production became toxic. ‘The revelation of Weinstein’s pervasive misconduct resulted in the cancellation of a number of productions, including the Project. 32, Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care to assure that Weinstein was fit to occupy his position with TWC and to supervise Weinstein’s conduct as an employee of TWC. 33. Defendants knew when TWC entered into the Contract with Plaintiffs that the success of the Project was largely dependent on TWC maintaining its reputation in the entertainment | community. Defendants knew or should have known that a scandal that destroyed TWC’s reputation would lead to the cancellation of Amazon's involvement the Project and prevent the realization of the objects of the Contract. Ae 6 COMPLAINT10 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 | 2 2 2B 4 25 26 2 28 34. Defendants had numerous warning signs that such a scandal was brewing. In the years before TWC entered into the Contract, TWC had received numerous complaints of sexual abuse and harassment engaged in by Weinstein, Those complaints, if investigated with reasonable diligence, would have disclosed that Weinstein was unfit for his position with TWC. Notwithstanding the many complaints of Weinstein's misconduct, Defendants continued his employment as TWC’s co-chairman and allowed him to continue to be TWC’s public face. Worse, Defendants provided Weinstein with a steady flow of potential victims of further abuse by allowing him to meet with actresses and other women on behalf of TWC without any supervision. 35. Defendants negligently breached their aforementioned duties of reasonable care by continuing to employ Weinstein despite numerous indications of his unfitness to serve in his position and by failing to reasonably supervise his conduct as TWC’s employee. i 36. Asa direct and foreseeable result of TWC’s negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered | damages in an amount that has not yet been ascertained, but which shall be proven upon the trial of this action FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Fraud by Concealment) 37. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each and every allegation of Paragraphs | through 36 of this Complaint. 38. Upon information and belief, beginning long before TWC’s founding in 2005 and continuing into 2017, Weinstein engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse of actresses and other women whom he encountered while conducting business. 39. Defendants were well aware of Weinstein’s pervasive pattern of abuse. TWC had made multiple payments to victims of such abuse to settle claims of sexual assault and harassment. Weinstein's employment contract with TWC reportedly provided that he could continue to engage in such abuse without breaching the contract, so long as he paid TWC a fine and reimbursed TWC for | the resulting payouts to claimants wy wt 7 ‘COMPLAINTSew aa WW 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 40. Weinstein’s pattem of abuse was a fact that would be material to anyone contracting with TWC to develop and/or produce a project with TWC, including Plaintiffs, because of the risk that the project would be tainted in the public eye by its association with Weinstein 41, Defendants had long presented TWC as a reputable production company with which to do business, both prior to and during the time that the Contract was under negotiation, This image of reputability was maintained by Defendants by means of the suppression of the facts of Weinstein’s sexual abuse and of Defendants’ role in enabling the abuse to continue. 42. Plaintiffs negot ted with TWC under the belief that they were dealing with a reputable company. During the time of the negotiations and at the time that they entered into the Contract, they had no knowledge of Weinstein’s history of sexual misconduct. Had they known of his sordid history, they would not have entered into the Contract, as it would have exposed TWC’s appearance of reputability to be a sham. 43. During the negotiations of the Contract, Defendants concealed Weinstein’s pattern of sexual abuse from Plaintiffs. Defendants did so with the intention that Plaintiffs would enter into the Contract in reliance thereon. 44, Plaintiffs, in reasonable reliance on their lack of knowledge of the concealed facts, entered into the Contract and assigned valuable intellectual property rights for the Project to an affiliate of TWC. 45, Asa direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, | Plaintitts have suffered damages in an amount that as not yet been ascertained, but which shall be proven upon the trial if this action. 46. In acting as alleged above, Defendants acted fraudulently, oppressively, and maliciously, in that they intentionally concealed material facts known to them with the intention of thereby depriving Plaintiffs of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and thereby ‘engaged in despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Defendants should accordingly be required to pay punitive or exemplary damages to Plaintiffs. wt 8 ‘COMPLAINTYaueon 10 Wl 12 13, 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for damages against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows: . Ome 9 Zon p | DATED: December 1, 2017 ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION For damages in an amount in excess of $2,000,000, according to proof; For interest on the damages, at the legal rate; For costs of suit incurred herein; For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper; ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION For damages, according to proof; For interest on the damages, at the legal rate; For costs of suit incurred herein; For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper; ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION For damages, according to proof For costs of suit incurred herein; For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper; ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION For compensatory damages, according to proof; For punitive damages, according to proof. For costs of suit incurred herein; and For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. FREEDMAN + TAITELMAN, LLP By BK» | teven ‘ormaker Attomeys for Plaintiff's EMJAG PRODUCTIONS, INC., SCOTT LAMBERT, and ALEXANDRA MILCHAN 9 COMPLAINT- coor |" Beyanf Frevtman, Esq/Steven Fonmaker Bog SBN. 15199093906 FREEDMAN + TAITELMAN LLP 1901 Avenue ofthe Star, Suite 50, Los Angeles, CA 90067 oe rexerionen0-(310) 201-0005 frno:(310) 201-0045 es | arom Fon ie: Plintfs EMIAG Productions, ne, Set Lambert and Aland Michan segetea arte aauce Surenion coun oF caLronia, cuNrY oF LOS ANGEL | trrer antes 111 North Set 7 swnuoeaooness: 11] North Hill Steet DEC O4 201 rvanp oe coo Los Angeles, Califo 90012 nag Cental Distt : Shor PCat, Executive Cfo CASE NAME: EMJAG Productions, Inc., et al. v. The Weinstein Company, LLC By Nancy Alvarez, Deputy CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation | "NER 3%] Unt im a demanded Gomendedis | Fleditrstaopearance by deondent |" BEG BH 51 1 L__exoeeds $25,000) $28,000 orless)|_" "(Gal ules of Cour ula S02) | ers ‘tems 1-6 below must be completed (see Instuictions on page 2). [i Check one bax below forthe caso type that bast desorioes this case (OF puto (22h LX] Breach of contactiwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) (7) uninsured motos (46) [ute 3.740 cotections (09) TE) aniirusv Trade roguiation (03 Other PUPD/WD (Personal njuryiProperty [_} Other collections (09) TE) Constrection dotoc 1 | Damage’Wrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) CA Mass tox 40) Asbestos (04) ] other contract (37) [1 securities tigation 23} Product Kabat (24) ‘Real Property J environmentatToxic tort (20) Elecrecdees Soon i) TT er crcae crear Non-PUPO'WO (Other) Tort 1 Wrenglut eviction (2) posta Busines towuntsr business praciea (07) L] Other ea! propery (26) Fitgreement of Judgment Civ ight (08) Unlawful Detainer TE enorcement of judgment (20) Fraud (16) TET residential FE] ricoen Intetoctual propery (19) 1 vgs (38) Other complaint (not spect above) 42) ‘Wrongful! termination (36) 1 Wt ot mandate (02) Fe [) other employment (15) [2) ner jucicial review (29) 2. Thiscase [Tis [icTisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court I the case ls Complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: 2.) Large number of separately represonted parties 4, [] Large number of witnesses ©.) Extonsive motion practice raising aout or nove! 0. [—] Coordination wity related actions pending in one or more courts Issues that wl be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or counties, or ina federal court c:(] Substantial amount ot documentary evidence _t. [] Substantial post}idgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check al hat apply): Number of causes of action (specify): Four (4) Triscase [Jis L)isnot aciase acton sult ifthere are any known related cases, le and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-O16) Date: December 1, 2017 Lived ene ee steven E, Fonmaker, Esq, : NOTICE ‘+ Plainti! must fie this cover sheet with the frst paper fled inthe action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled Under the Probate Code, Family Code, of Welfare and Insttutons Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, ule 3.220, Fale to file may resut | In sanctions. + File thls cover sheet in addon to any cover sheet required by local cour rule * I this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq, ofthe Callforna Rules of Cour, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all ‘other patios to the action or proceeding + Unless this is calection case under rule 3740 or @ complex caso, his cover sheet wl bo used for stastcal purposes only oa Civit CASE COVER SHEET Gia yoea mT ; 3a monetary b.[_] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive refit ¢- [punitive 4 5 6INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET cow To Plaintits and Others Filing First Papers. I! you are fling a fst paper (lor example, a compiain) ina cv case, you must completo and fle, along wih your fist paper, tte Givi Case Cover Shaet contained on page {This ifomaton wil be usod io compte Stasis about the types and numbers of cases fed. You must complete teme 1 through @ onthe shoot. ntem You muse check ane box forthe case type that best describes te case. the case fs bath a goneal and a more specie ype of case ted inom heck the more specie one ifthe case has multiple causes of action, chock th box tat best ndiates the primary cause of acon. To assist you In competing tho shoe, examples o! tho cases that Belong under each case type in tem 1 ate provided bolo. A sovor sheet must be fed only wit your Ital paper. Fluo to fe a cover sheath ho fist par led in'a cv case may subjot a pay, is counsel or both to sanions Under rules 2.90 and 3.220 ofthe Calfomnia Pules of Court To Parties in Rule 3.749 Collections Cases. A “cllections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated io be certain that snot more than 825/000, exolsWe of intrest and attomey's fees, aring fom a transaction vitich property, senvces, or money was acqued on ered. A-olectons case does not include ection sting th following (1) tort darnages, (2) purine. damages, (8) recovery of feel propery, (4) recovery of personal propary, oF (8) = projidomer tof attachment. The Kentiicaton of a ease as a tle 3.740 collectons case on this form means that fl bo oxempt fom the gona timofor service requirements and case management rie, unless defendant few a responsive pleading. A rule 8.740 colectons «ase wil be subject to requ ements for serves and obtaining ajudgmort in rule 3740 To Parties in Complex Cases. In compex cases only, patos must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designat whether the case is complex. Ia paint belleves the ces is complex undor rule 3.400 ofthe Calfomia Fives of Cou this must be ndeated by completing the appropiate boxes in items ‘and 2. a pain designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be sored wih the complaint onal pares tothe acon. A dofondant may fio and serve Po lator then the ime oft fist appearance jlnde ite alanti's designation a counior-designation tat the case isnot complex, o,f the psintithas made no dee'gnaion, a Josignation hat the cae s complex CCASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES ‘sto Tor Contract Provisionally Complex Cll Litigation (Cs ‘Ait (2)-Persona in/Property reach of Contact Waray (6) ules of Court Rules 3400-8409) Damagewrongh Oeath treach of Aantal.oase “otis Tad Regulation (0) Uninsured Moot 6) ie Contract a unter dtainor onstucton Beles. 10) ‘ase meh an unured ‘xr wrongtencton) tame vol ass Tort (40) Imotoest eam subject fo Ccontaciaranty Seach: Soler Secures Ligation (25 ‘biraion check Ps tom Psi (nt feud or nogience) Environmental Tone Tort (20) insteaa of Ave) Noglgont each of Cone rane Covran Ca ther PLPDAD (Persona injury! Warranty faisng tom powionly complex roperty Damagerrongtul tne Breach of ConraciMarraniy Ease ype fated above) A) ror nena, Ccotestos (eg, money oned, open norcoment of Judgment Asbestos (04) ‘book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Jucgment (20) ‘bests Property Damage Colecton Cate Seller Plant “Resco udgment (Out oh ‘Asbesios Personal gay? Siner Promissory Noteolectons oun ‘wrengha Beaty lnewsntores ane Cont sort on Prodvet iy (rt asbatos or insurance Coverage (not poviionaly es relations) *tnisonsveaeria a8 ‘comple (18) ster Sa uagmert Medea Mapractes (8) ‘ita Subrogation Zemiistalve Agoney Aare ‘Medical Malpractice Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes) Physicians & Surgeons ‘Other Contract (37) PettionGertitication of Enby of the: Presson Heath Care Contractual Fraud “uegmen on Unpa Tanes Malpractes Otrer Contract Depue Cote Enercement of gre thes PUBOMND (28) Real Property ase remes tabi (9. ip tnnent Domain inverse Miscellaneous Chil Complait nd) Cendernaten (3) ico en Intentional’ Body InixyPOAWD Weng! Eveton (3) re Cate seca (e4 aseaut vancasm) Other Rea Propery (29, ue te 25) 280) \ntetonalinfieton of ‘Wit of Possetion of Rea Proper, Declaton, Retel Ory Emotona Dstess Wongage Forecesure Inuncve Rete Oniy (non Negigem inticton ot Serres neuen Erotonal reves See TES exopety (cot aninant lecharos Uen ofner POND tne Real property (nto Ge Cee Comin Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort ‘erososiee) once ronmaron caret Business TorvUntl Business Untawtu Dotainer Gul Comet Practice (07) ‘Commercial (2) vectra nce Cv Fgh cseainaon, Residential (32) Pemeascinnnesians tase aest (ott Drug (28) fe case ios legal mgr ard Cop harasmend (08) Tuga, choc ns fem; cir, on Ee as Dotamaton (0, lancer, tbe) ‘epor as Conmortitor Reser) pa 13). stuicial Review BE ant Fraud (16) ‘Asst orfeture (05) biol eerettn Irtlectval Property (19) Pelton Re: Abiation Aware (1) Boetbesancee ut Prelesaonal Negigencs (28) Wit arate (2) rn egal Malpanice Weta Mandanus exec Cortes (Sher Prolssonel Malprechce Wotcktangamus on Lines Cour eae eee {ot mecteal or legal, ‘Case Matier Petition for Relic From Late emperor BENG Tot 5) Wal-Other Lied Cour Case mon mployment view + Ch Psion Wong Teinaion 2) ote, it Rein (2) eee mer Employment (1) Tevew ot esi tear Orcer Notoe of Appeal-Labor (Commissioner Acpeats Toe a7 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET