Kara Blanc v. Tri Crown Lawsuit

STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON (State Bar No. 36189)
STEPHEN ALLEN JAMIESON (State Bar No. 115805)
R. BRUCE EVANS (State Bar No. 217098)
SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

KARA BLANC.

Plaintiff.

Vs.

TRI-CROWN PRODUCTIONS, INC.
YEA STUDIOS; SCI-FI CHANNEL
CREATORS SCOTT HALLOCK; KEVIN
HEALEY; MATHEW MERTHA; TRAVIS
DRAFT; HALLOCK HEALEY
ENTERTAINMENT; TRI-CROWN
CREATIVE GROUP; TRI-CROWN
COMPANIES: and DOES 1through 50.
Inclusive.

Defendants

Case No. BC290440

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; INVASION OF PRIVACY; VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE ß1708.0; VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE ß632.2; ASSAULT; FALSE IMPRISONMENT; FRAUDULENT

MISREPRESENTATION;

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND UNFAIR BUSINESS

PRACTICES

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff KARA BLANC was over the age of 18 and competent to bring this action and testify; and all times was residing in Los Angeles County, California.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Tri-Crown Productions, Inc. was a California corporation located at 2157 Talmadge Avenue in Los Angeles, California, which was in the business of television production, and which was one producer, owner, financier and developer of a television show known as “Scare Tactics”, which will be aired on Defendant Sci-Fi Channel commencing 2003.

3. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Yeah Studios was a business organization owned or operated by Defendant Tri-Crown Productions, Inc., located at 2157 Talmadge Avenue in Los Angeles, California, which was in the business of television production, and which was one producer, owner, financier and developer of a television show known as “Scare Tactics”, which will be aired on Defendant Sci-Fi Channel commencing in 2003.

4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Sci-Fi Channel was a California corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, which was one producer, owner, financier and developer of a television show known as “Scare Tactics”, which will be aired on Defendant Sci-Fi Channel commencing in 2003.

5. At all times herein mentioned, Scott Hallock was a creator, writer, producer and director of that television program known as “Scare Tactics”.

6. At all times herein mentioned, Kevin Healey was acreator, writer, producer and director of that television program known as “Scare Tactics”.

7. At all times herein mentioned, Matthew Mertha was an employee and agent of the other Defendants, and was an actor on the episode of “Scare Tactics” in which Plaintiff was a nonconsenting and unwitting victim.

8. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Travis Draft was an employee and agent of the other Defendants, and was an actor on the episode of “Scare Tactics” in which Plaintiff was a nonconsenting and unwitting victim.

9. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that Plaintiff’s damages were proximately and legally caused by their conduct.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents (ostensible and actual) and employees of the other named Defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment and with the permission, consent, authorization and ratification of each of the other Co-Defendants. Additionally, each of the Defendants who made representations herein was making those representations in the course and scope of their employment and agency with and on behalf of each of the other Defendants. Furthermore, all reference to “Defendants” or any named Defendant is also considered throughout this pleading to be a reference to DOES 1-50 as well.

11. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, intended to subject Plaintiff, without her knowledge or consent, to a hidden camera episode of “Scare Tactics” which was designed to make her believe that she and her friends were about to become victims of a homicide, and that the Defendants further intended to and did in fact create an audio and visual record, videotape and/or film of Plaintiff’s terrified reaction to this scenario in order to financially profit. Furthermore, Defendants recorded and filmed numerous other victims of “Scare Tactics” under similar or identical circumstances, all of which constituted an unfair, illegal and fraudulent business practice.

12. On March 1 , 2002, in Los Angeles County, California, Defendants and each of them subjected Plaintiff to a filming of the show “Scare Tactics”, during which Defendants Mertha and Draft feigned that they were being seriously physically injured and/or killed, and that Plaintiff was at immediate risk of being injured or killed, all in an effort to terrorize Plaintiff so that Defendants could capture her reactions on audio and film without her knowledge or consent. Defendants Mertha and Draft made the following representations of material fact to Plaintiff:

(a) That on the evening of March 1 , 2002, Plaintiff was invited and was being taken to an exclusive Hollywood industry party at a desert resort located in Los Angeles County, California;

(b) That the automobile in which Defendant Mertha, Defendant Draft and Plaintiff were riding had “stalled” on a remote desert road in Los Angeles County, California;

(c) That a costumed “Alien” was in fact attacking and physically injuring Defendants Mertha and Draft, and that Plaintiff’s life and that of said Defendants were in grave danger; and

(d) That Plaintiff could only escape serious injury or death by running for her life through a dark, desert canyon area, and to then later return to the automobile in hopes of escape.

These representations of said Defendants were in fact false. The truth was that: Plaintiff had not been invited to and exclusive Hollywood industry party; that the automobile in which Plaintiff was riding had not “stalled”; that Plaintiff and Defendants Mertha and Draft were not probable victims of a homicide at the hands of the “Alien”, but rather Defendants Mertha, Draft and the “Alien” were merely actors in a surreptitious episode of “Scare Tactics”; and that Plaintiff had no need to escape as she was informed she should by Defendants Mertha and Draft. Defendants intended to cause plaintiff to believe that defendants were attempting to murder, kidnap, or otherwise terrorize plaintiff and her “friends”, and cause her and her “friends” physical and emotional damage and harm; and plaintiff did in fact, believe that was happening. As a result of defendants intentional and negligent actions and omissions, plaintiff suffered severe physical and emotional injuries and damages. She was hospitalized several times and has incurred medical costs, lost earnings and earning capacity.

13. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that Plaintiff would be seriously frightened, emotionally disturbed, fear for her personal safety and be psychologically and/or physically injured--or in fear that her “friends” would be physically injure or killed—during the course of filming the show “Scare Tactics.”

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1–13 of this Complaint.

14. On March 1 , 2002, in Los Angeles County, California, Defendants and each of them negligently subjected Plaintiff to a nonconsensual filming of the show “Scare Tactics”, at which time Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, as well as severe emotional distress.

15. As a proximate legal result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has and will suffer economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

16. As a proximate legal result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has and will suffer noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 14-16 of this Complaint.

17. Defendants and each of them engaged in negligent conduct as described hereinabove, and violated Civil Code ß1708.0 and Penal Code ß637.2, among others.

18. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent conduct and violation of statutory standards, Plaintiff suffered serious distress.

19. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff has and will suffer economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

20. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff has and will suffer noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-20 of this Complaint.

21. Defendants and each of them engaged in outrageous conduct as described above, which Plaintiff is informed and believes was intended to cause Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.

22. Additionally, Defendants and each of them engaged in the above-described outrageous conduct with reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress, the Plaintiff was present at the time the outrageous conduct occurred, and the Defendants knew that the Plaintiff was present.

23. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ outrageous conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.

24. As a further legal and proximate result of Defendants’ outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

25. As a further legal and proximate result of Defendants’ outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

26. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(INVASION OF PRIVACY – INTRUSION, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS, AND FALSE LIGHT)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-26 of this Complaint.

27. At the time the Defendants used their hidden audio, video and television cameras, Plaintiff was either a passenger in an automobile, or a remote deserted area of Los Angeles County, California. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy that Defendants would not unreasonably intrude into Plaintiff’s privacy, nor publicly traumatize her for the purpose of revealing her trauma to the cast and crew of Scare Tactics who witnessed it while they surreptitiously recorded and filmed it.

28. Defendants’ intrusion into Plaintiff’s private life by terrorizing and traumatizing her for the purpose of such surreptitious recording and filming was, and is, highly offensive to a reasonable and ordinary person.

29. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

30. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ intrusion into Plaintiff’s privacy, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

31. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their own behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE ß1708.8)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates be reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-31 of this Complaint.

32. Defendants and each of them invaded Plaintiff’s privacy in a manner offensive to a reasonable person by attempting to capture the visual images and sound recordings of Plaintiff engaging in personal activities about which Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of visual and auditory enhancing devices.

33. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and each of them trespassed in order to physically invade the privacy of Plaintiff with the intent to capture visual images and sound recordings of Plaintiff engaged in personal activities, and the invasion incurred in a manner which was offensive to a reasonable person.

34. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

35. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

36. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to three times the amount of Plaintiff’s economic and noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

37. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE ß632 & ß637.2)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-37 of this Complaint.

38. Defendants and each of them intentionally and without the consent of the Plaintiff, electronically recorded and eavesdropped upon the confidential communication of Plaintiff with the Defendants Mertha and Draft on the evening of March 1 , 2002, in Los Angeles County, California, while Plaintiff was in an automobile and in a remote, deserted area, locations and circumstances under which Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

39. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ eavesdropping and recording of Plaintiff’s confidential communications, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

40. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ eavesdropping and recording of Plaintiff’s confidential communications, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

41. As a result of Defendants’ violations of Penal Code ß632.2, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of 5,000.00, or three times Plaintiff’s actual damages, whichever is greater.

42. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarding according to proof.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(ASSAULT)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-42 of this Complaint.

43. On or about March 1 , 2002, in Los Angeles County, California, an unknown assailant who was employed by and the agent of Defendants, and each of them, acting during the course and scope of his employment, attacked and assaulted Plaintiff while in an “Alien” costume, placing Plaintiff in fear of her life and lives of her friends.

44. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants intended to cause or to place Plaintiff in apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person.

45. As a result of the Defendants’ acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff, in fact, was placed in great apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person.

46. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

47. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages. in amount to be awarded according to proof.

48. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(FALSE IMPRISIONMENT)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint.

49.  Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and unlawfully exercised force or the express or implied threat of force, menace, fraud or deceit, and/or unreasonable duress to restrain, detain or confine the Plaintiff in or around the automobile where the terroristic attack occurred.

50.  The restraint, detention or confinement compelled

Plaintiff to stay in the car, to later escape into the desert-like canyon area, and then to retreat to the automobile in an attempt to escape.

51.  Plaintiff did not consent to the restraint, detention or confinement at any time.

52.  As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ act as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

53.  As al legal proximate result of Defendants’ acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

54.  The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive.  In doing these fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their behalf.  As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-54 of this Complaint.

55.  Defendants Mertha and Draft made the following representations of material fact to Plaintiff:

(a)  That on the evening of March 1 , 2002 , Plaintiff was invited and being taken to an exclusive Hollywood industry party at a desert resort located in Los Angeles County, California ;

(b)  That the automobile in which Defendant Mertha, Defendant Draft and Plaintiff were riding had “stalled” on a remote desert road in Los Angeles County, California ;

(c)  That a costumed “Alien” was in fact attacking and physically injuring Defendants Mertha and Draft, and that Plaintiff’s life and that of said Defendants were in grave danger; and

(d)  That Plaintiff could only escape serious injury or death by running for her life through a dark, desert canyon area, and to then later return to the automobile in hopes of escape.

56.  These representations of said Defendants were in fact false.  The truth was that:  Plaintiff had not been invited to an exclusive Hollywood industry party; that the automobile in which Plaintiff was riding had not “stalled”;  that Plaintiff and Defendants Mertha and Draft were not probable victims of a homicide at the hands of the “Alien”, but rather than Defendants Mertha, Draft and the “Alien” were merely actors in a surreptitious episode of “Scare Tactics”; and that Plaintiff had no need to escape as she was informed she should by Defendants Mertha and Draft.

57.  When said Defendants made the above-described representations, they knew they were false.

58.  Defendants Mertha and Draft, acting in the course and scope of their employment and agency with the other remaining Defendants, made the above representations with the malicious, oppressive and fraudulent intent to defraud and induce Plaintiff to be terrorized, frightened, and seriously emotionally distressed so that Plaintiff’s  reactions could be surreptitiously recorded and filmed. 

59. At the time Plaintiff acted, Plaintiff did not know that the representations were false and believed that they were true. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance on the truth of the representations.

60. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations of material fact, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

61. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations of material fact, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

62. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-62 of this Complaint.

63. Defendants, and each of them, concealed or suppressed the material facts described hereinabove in paragraphs 55 and 56.

64. Defendants concealed or suppressed such material facts by telling Plaintiff other facts, including those described in paragraph 55, to mislead Plaintiff to prevent Plaintiff from discovering the truth.

65. Defendants concealed or suppressed these facts with the intent to defraud and induce Plaintiff to act as described hereinabove.

66. At the time Plaintiff acted, Plaintiff was unaware of the concealed or suppressed facts and would not have taken the action if Plaintiff had known the facts.

67. In justifiable reliance upon Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was induced to the fact in fear of her safety as described hereinabove.

68. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ concealment of material facts, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

69. As a legal and proximate result of Defendants’ concealment of material fact, Plaintiff has suffered noneconomic damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

70. The conduct of Defendants and each of them was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive. In doing these fraudulent, malicious and oppressive acts, each of the individual Defendants was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with the corporate and business Defendants, each of which approved, authorized and/or ratified the conduct of the individual Defendants who were acting on their behalf. As a consequence of Defendants’ fraudulent, malicious and oppressive conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF B&P ß17200 and ß17500)
(As Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation of the preceding paragraphs 1-70 of this Complaint.

71. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in the conduct and made the misrepresentations described hereinabove in an untrue and misleading manner, and as part of a business practice to deceive the general public, including Plaintiff, into unwittingly participating in Defendants’ television program “Scare Tactics”. Defendants took these actions and made these representations for the purpose of profiting from this untrue, misleading and deceptive scheme.

72. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants filmed numerous persons other than Plaintiff in an effort to create the television show “Scare Tactics”. In each “episode” which Defendants recorded, videotaped and/or filmed, Defendants utilized similar false and misleading statements to terrorize nonconsenting persons and surreptitiously record their emotional trauma, all in violation of Business & Professions Code ß17200 and ß17500, Penal Code ß632, et. seq., Civil Code ß1708.8, among other statutory prohibitions. Defendants’ conduct constituted unfair competition under Business & Professions Code ß17200 in that it was unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent.

73. As a result of Defendants’ violation of Business & Professions Code ß17200, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the general public to obtain injunctive relief to stop and further unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practices, and to obtain disgorgement of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains or unlawful profits.

75. Defendants, and each of them, conspired with each other to cause the damages and injuries to plaintiff as part of an ongoing enterprise to produce a multi-episode series for the Sci-Fi Channel.

76. As a result of Defendants’ action, Plaintiff has incurred economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

77. Defendants’ conduct described herein was done with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent to vex, injure or annoy Plaintiff such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code ß 3294, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary or punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. For economic damages, including past and future medical expenses and lost wages in an amount to be awarded according to proof on those claims appropriate and where requested only.

2. For noneconomic damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress in an amount to be awarded according to proof;

3. For treble damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof on those claims where requested only; 4. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be awarded according to proof on those claims for intentional conduct only;

5. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from presenting any of the audio or visual recording of Plaintiff’s victimization to anyone;

6. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing Defendants from continuing to engage in the unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practice of surreptitiously recording the traumatized reactions of any other persons in the future;

7. On behalf of the general public, restitution or disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains or profits from Defendants as a result of their unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practices;

8. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit herein on those causes of action where available; and

9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: February _, 2003

SOLOMON, SALTSMAN, & JAMISON SOLOMON,
SALTSMAN & JAMISON

By ______________________
STEPHEN WARREN SOLOMON
R BRUCE EVANS

BY _____________________
STEPHEN ALLEN JAMISON
R. BRUCE EVANS

Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson are attorneys practicing in the areas of ABC law, ABC Appeals Board cases, and all related Land Use Matters such as City and County Conditional Land Use Permits, Variances, Police and Fire Permits, Entertainment Law, Gaming Law, as well as Personal Injury litigation. Solomon Saltsman & Jamieson can be contacted at 800-405-4222.