Showing posts with label complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complaint. Show all posts

Friday, February 17, 2023

Miyoko's Creamery lawsuit, Miyoko Schinner by Mary Cummins Investigative Reporter

Miyoko's Creamery, Miyoko Schinner, Lisa Bloom, lawsuit, complaint, mary cummins, investigative reporter, trade secrets, vegan, cheese, woman, board
Miyoko's Creamery, Miyoko Schinner, Lisa Bloom, lawsuit, complaint, mary cummins, investigative reporter, trade secrets, vegan, cheese, vegan cheese, woman, board

Case is Miyoko's PBC v Miyoko Schinner, 4:23-cv-00711-DMR filed in California District Court North District. https://cand.uscourts.gov/ 
Judge is Donna M. Ryu https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/ryu-donna-m-dmr/ You can access case and case documents on your own via Pacer.gov but you have to register. I'm posting everything here including the documents.

UPDATE: 05/18/23 10:00 a.m. PST The case is settled. From Miyoko Schinner on LinkedIn.

"Miyoko's Creamery and Miyoko Schinner are pleased that they have resolved all legal disputes between them and that they have withdrawn all legal claims made against each other.

Miyoko’s Creamery acknowledges the tremendous creativity, hard work, and integrity of its founder, Miyoko Schinner, a true pioneer in vegan creamery products, and appreciates her many contributions to the company over the years.

Miyoko Schinner appreciates the dedicated team of people at Miyoko’s Creamery and their commitment to continuing her legacy through sustained and continued excellence in manufacturing, developing and selling vegan creamery products.

Miyoko and the company wish each other well as they go their separate ways."



0507/23 Status on docket

 04/27/2023 20 ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. The parties have failed to file an ADR Certification as required by the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order. Counsel shall comply promptly with the requirements of ADR L.R. 3-5(b) and shall file the ADR Certification. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2023) (Entered: 04/27/2023)

04/27/2023 21 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options Filed on behalf of Miyoko's, PBC (Rubin, Jennifer) (Filed on 4/27/2023) (Entered: 04/27/2023)

04/27/2023 22 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Goldstein, Alan) (Filed on 4/27/2023) (Entered: 04/27/2023)

05/05/2023 23 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 7 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines filed by Miyoko's, PBC, Miyoko Schinner. (Rubin, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/5/2023) Modified on 5/8/2023 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/05/2023)

05/05/2023 24 ORDER (AS MODIFIED) granting 23 Stipulation to Continue Initial Case Management Conference: Parties shall file a joint Case Management Conference Statement by 5/31/2023. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/17/2023 01:30 PM is vacated and continued to 6/7/2023 01:30 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only. All counsel and parties may access the webinar information (public hearings) at https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/ryu-donna-m-dmr/. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 5/5/2023. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2023) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

April 27, 2023 Company wipes Miyoko Schinner off their website. She gets a tiny note in history that she started it with four people out of her home. The rest of the credit for everything else goes to the company. 

http://www.miyokos.com 

04/27/2023 20 ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. The parties have failed to file an ADR Certification as required by the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order. Counsel shall comply promptly with the requirements of ADR L.R. 3-5(b) and shall file the ADR Certification. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2023) (Entered: 04/27/2023)

04/27/2023 21 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options Filed on behalf of Miyoko's, PBC (Rubin, Jennifer) (Filed on 4/27/2023) (Entered: 04/27/2023)

04/27/2023 22 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Goldstein, Alan) (Filed on 4/27/2023) (Entered: 04/27/2023)

April 26, 2023 Miyoko Schinner posted an Insta saying she was going to mediation with her lawyer. Hope they settle for everyone's sake. I dug up her cookbook and will have to make her butter from scratch if this keeps up. Hurry up and do right by Miyoko! I need butter! :-D

April 6, 2023 Plaintiff's file answer to Miyoko Schinner's countersuit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18W1sj1WbvRUWEPBio6uhMOdhonmzOBxw/view?usp=sharing

March 16, 2023 Miyoko replied to the original complaint and filed a countersuit.

Docket entry

03/13/2023 15 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Miyoko Schinner.. (Goldstein, Alan) (Filed on 3/13/2023) (Entered: 03/13/2023)

03/15/2023 16 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Miyoko's, PBC.. (Rubin, Jennifer) (Filed on 3/15/2023) (Entered: 03/15/2023)

03/16/2023 17 COUNTERCLAIM against Miyoko's, PBC. Filed by Miyoko Schinner. (Bloom, Lisa) (Filed on 3/16/2023) (Entered: 03/16/2023)

03/16/2023 18 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand , COUNTERCLAIM against Miyoko's, PBC by Miyoko Schinner. (Bloom, Lisa) (Filed on 3/16/2023) (Entered: 03/16/2023)

Miyoko's answer to original complaint. She denied or admitted their causes of action. What's interesting is that she denied there are trade secrets. Makes sense as she published a cookbook in 2012 titled Artisan Vegan Cheese with all her cheese recipes. Miyoko owns her cheese recipes though maybe not liquid moz because that's newer.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zERO4dxSETTPdKjqjmzITmEnfWLnTvsE/view?usp=sharing

Miyoko's counterclaim. A small fyi she actually formed the company December 2013 per her corporation statement. Suit says 2014. Rene Weber appears to be the man who allegedly denigrates women with the help of a few others i.e., James Joaquin of Obvious Ventures, John Kenney of Cult Capital, Daniel Gluck of PowerPlant Partners, John Zabrodsky hired by PowerPlant Partners, see below. I've noticed that venture capitalists tend to be part of the boys club. I've seen this behavior in public companies when venture capitalists get appointed to boards. The company made some horrible moves in this lawsuit and press release. I think the boys were behind it. They clearly don't know how to run a business especially an ethical plant based business founded by a much loved and respected woman. The company continues to use Miyoko's photos, likeness against her wishes after she sent cease and desist letters. It bothers me to see the business website today with her photos and story plastered all over it. It's good she never sold or gave that to the business especially because she didn't even get a golden handshake.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HvJPaEBOIKLRe6VPx5wrqJ0Qq9bwRSX8/view?usp=sharing

1. GENDER DISCRIMINATION (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a))

2. FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(k))

3. RETALIATION (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h))

4. WRONGFUL TERMINATION INVIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

5. VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PUBLICITY (Cal. Civ. Code §3344)

6. MISAPPROPRIATION OF NAME AND LIKENESS

Below is just the main part of the main claim and factual events.

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant and Counterclaimant Miyoko Schinner (“Miyoko”) is a

groundbreaking, beloved creator of popular plant-based cheeses and butter,

motivated by her passion to save animals and the planet. In 2014, she founded

Miyoko’s Kitchen (now Miyoko’s Creamery), a revolutionary, multi-million dollar

plant-based food corporation. Due to her hard work and under Miyoko’s

leadership, the company – Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Miyoko’s, PBC (“MP”)

– grew exponentially and exceeded all expectations year after year. Miyoko won

several awards and, in 2021, was named in Forbes Magazines’s 50 over 50. To

this day, MP acknowledges that Miyoko’s “passion for her craft and mission is

unrivaled.”1

2. In 2021, MP hired René Weber, an executive who singled out and openly

denigrated women, especially Miyoko, making it impossible for her to continue to

effectively do her job. On behalf of herself and other women at MP, Miyoko

complained to HR. MP swiftly retaliated against Miyoko by demoting her and then

terminating her.

3. To this day, MP continues to prominently display Miyoko’s name and

likeness on its website, despite its knowledge that it had no right to do so. MP has

flatly ignored her cease and desist letters demanding the removal of her likeness

from its websites.

4. Miyoko brings her Counterclaims against MP for unlawful employment

practices, including gender discrimination and retaliation, and for its unlawful use

of her likeness on its website without her consent. MP must now be held

accountable for the harm it caused her and continues to cause her.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Over the past four decades, Miyoko has written vegan cookbooks, taught

cooking classes, opened and sold a vegan restaurant (called Now & Zen) and

launched a vegan natural foods company and vegan brands, including a competitor

to Tofurky. In 2012, she published Artisan Vegan Cheese, the seminal cookbook

that put vegan cheesemaking on the map.

9. In September 2014, Miyoko’s Kitchen, the vegan creamery company she

founded, went live online. Three days later, it had more than 500 unique orders,

averaging $100 each. Miyoko, who had earlier envisioned opening a little cheese

shop, began selling to distributors. The rest of the story is playing out today at

30,000 retailers, including Whole Foods and Target, both nationwide and

internationally. MP now has a current valuation of $260 million.

10. In January of 2021, MP hired Rene Weber to be VP of Operations. Mr.

Weber immediately began a campaign of mistreating women who worked at MP,

including Miyoko, by excluding them from meetings, denying them information

they needed, berating them publicly and privately, and otherwise making it

difficult to impossible to do their jobs. Mr. Weber openly denigrated women, their

expertise, and their contributions at MP, calling some “stupid” and “terrible.” He

did not use these condescending terms with men. On several occasions, he

mansplained to Miyoko that she did not understand her own products or MP, the

company she founded. In a markedly gendered tone, he described her ideas and

ambition as unrealistic, driven by emotion and whim.

11. Miyoko, then CEO of MP, often complained to James Joaquin (Co-

Founder & Managing Director of Obvious Ventures, an investor of MP) and John

Kenney (Co-Founder at Cult Capital, an investor of MP) about Mr. Weber’s

condescending behavior to her which she believed was due to her gender.

12. In December 2021, John Zabrodsky, an operations consultant hired by

MP at the behest of PowerPlant Partners (MP’s lead investor), presented a report

on MP operations in a meeting wherein he addressed Miyoko in a very

condescending manner. He would not have addressed her in this manner had

Miyoko not been a woman. Miyoko complained about Mr. Zabrodsky’s gendered

behavior to an executive at PowerPlant Partners.

13. In early 2022, after Miyoko made multiple complaints about Mr.

Weber’s mistreatment of women, MP directed her to promote Mr. Weber to the

position of Chief Operating Officer due to its concerns that he was a “flight risk.”

Mr. Kenney acknowledged Miyoko’s prior complaints of Mr. Weber’s

mistreatment of women at MP, but he told her that we “could not afford to lose”

Mr. Weber and that MP needed to promote Mr. Weber. Another executive noted to

Miyoko that Mr. Weber was “our key to get to $200 million” in sales.

14. In January of 2022, at a Board meeting, Miyoko reported Mr.

Zabrodsky’s gendered behavior to Daniel Gluck (Managing Partner of PowerPlant

Partners), Mr. Kenney, Mr. Joaquin and Mr. Weber. Mr. Gluck quickly rebuffed

her by saying, “I don’t know about any misogyny, but we need to discuss [Mr.

Zabrodsky’s operations] report. What else does it say?”

15. In February 2022, Miyoko complained to Lisa Feria (an MP Board

member and Managing Partner & CEO at Stray Dog Capital, an investor of MP)

about gendered treatment against her by members of the Board. Miyoko perceived

much of this gendered treatment when it doubted her capabilities as CEO and

sought to hire a President to seize much of her responsibilities. Ms. Feria confided

in Miyoko about feeling ineffective and ignored by the male Board members in

meetings.

16. In late May of 2022, Miyoko complained to MP’s then Director of HR

about gendered treatment from Jorge Couce, a Senior Director at MP. Upon

information and belief, HR never investigated Miyoko’s gender discrimination

complaint.

17. On June 9, 2022, MP’s Board removed Miyoko from MP’s CEO role.

Miyoko remained as MP’s Board Chair and as a MP employee. Jon Blair, MP’s

Chief Financial Officer, stepped into the role of interim President to guide the

transition and run day-to-day operations.

18. On June 14, 2022, Miyoko emailed Mr. Blair to complain about Mr.

Weber. She stated in the email:

We lost two female employees due to [Mr. Weber’s]

mistreatment of them – I found an email from Louis [Kanganis]

about one of them, actually. He was going to fire another

female in his department earlier this year, someone who has

been here for years and while not stellar, has been a good

member of the team and is willing to do anything despite her

age and family issues. I was able to put a stop to that. He has a

dismissive way with female employees that is not good.

19. On July 9, 2022, Miyoko confirmed her prior oral complaints of gender

discrimination in an email to Ms. Feria, presenting a “timeline of misses, issues,

and other problems in [her] assessment of [Mr. Weber].” She wrote, in part:

At least 8 women have complained about [Mr. Weber’s]

rudeness, arrogance, and dismissive attitude. It is well known

that his demeanor toward them contributed to the parting of at

least two [names omitted]. Others were too afraid to complain

about him because he wields so much power. Tight with the HR

Director, making it difficult for low-level employees to do

anything. On a number of occasions, employees have come to

me with problems or complaints that had fallen on deaf ears

with HR or Ops. When I reported the complaints, and HR

would do an “investigation,” and the fault invariably fell with

those complaining, while those complained about were found

innocent. He has openly criticized a number of female

employees to me, calling them “not good,” “stupid,” “terrible,”

etc. One employee apparently reported leaving because of

“integrity issues” with René and Jorge. Prior to my

“reassignment,” I reported to René that it had come to my

attention that 4 women recently had felt dismissed or

disrespected by Jorge. He seemed surprised and told me to file

a complaint with HR, which I did. There was time to get back

to me on this before my vacation, and assuming that Lenora had

not been informed I had been fired, but she nor René never did.

20. Just a few days later, on July 28, 2022 MP terminated Miyoko’s

employment entirely. MP set August 12, 2022 as the effective termination date.

21. MP’s termination of Miyoko’s employment was an act of retaliation for

her complaints of discrimination against Mr. Weber and Mr. Zabrodsky. Indeed,

Mr. Joaquin earlier characterized Miyoko’s attempts to hold Mr. Weber

accountable for his misconduct as “irrational.” It bothered MP executives that

Miyoko stood up for her rights and the rights of other women in the company,

demanding respectful treatment and refusing to conform to the stereotype of a

docile, complacent, obedient Asian-American woman. Miyoko was not acceptable

to them as a person with decision-making power and authority in the company. It

was only the image of her celebrity status and prominence in the vegan and food

worlds which MP continues to use in branding and marketing that MP desired to

retain.

22. After Miyoko’s termination, Mr. Blair advised her that she could keep

the keys to MP’s premises and that she could keep her two company laptops.

23. MP never obtained the right to use Miyoko’s name, image and likeness

after her termination. Yet MP used Miyoko’s name, image and likeness on its

website and on a food truck that was about to commence a multi-week tour from

California to Austin. In August 18, 2022, Miyoko, through her legal counsel,

demanded that MP cease and desist its use and exploitation of her publicity rights.

After receiving no response, Miyoko, through her legal counsel, again demanded

that MP cease and desist its use and exploitation of her publicity rights. To this

day, MP has willfully refused to comply – Miyoko’s name, image and likeness

remains on its website and the food truck completed the multi-week tour from

California to Austin.

24. MP has excluded Miyoko from Board meetings and from her rights as a

director to “inspect and copy all books, records and documents of every kind” as

provided by California Corporations Code section 8334.

Here is video of Rene Weber saying Miyoko made all the recipes and built the business to what it is today June 2022. He said their cheese isn't an empty product made out of oil and starch, like the shreds? This guy doesn't seem to be into animals.He says the cheese is good for you and the planet. What about the animals? They don't have to be treated cruelly then killed. He's allegedly a Swiss master cheese maker. He appears to be pro dairy and pro dairy cheese. Here is his resume. He's from Bern. https://rocketreach.co/rene-weber-email_98230149

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7eVmnk7b3g

March 1, 2023 Miyoko Schinner hired Lisa Bloom to represent her in the lawsuit.

https://breakthesilence.substack.com/p/miyoko-schinner-retains-lisa-bloom

Here is the complaint against Miyoko Schinner. It's a public document.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10ZG7FpuwJdODjByVl11i-9hMt_5b_UrX/view?usp=sharing 

Summary of lawsuit: Miyoko Schinner started Miyoko's, Miyoko's Kitchen, Miyoko's Creamery in 2013. It was incorporated in California and merged into a new Delaware corporation in 2019 as Miyoko's Kitchen Inc and Miyoko's PBC. Miyoko Schinner is an award-winning Vegan celebrity chef who developed the best vegan butter and cheeses while writing vegan cheese cookbooks. Through her many years of very hard work she made her company into a $250,000,000 company getting her product in all the major grocery stores and markets. She is a well respected business woman in her field. She also runs Rancho Compasion.

Miyoko's sought out venture capital starting in 2016 in order to expand production due to high demand. When you accept venture capital they expect a few seats on the board of directors. Miyoko's Creamery is a B Corporation and a Public Benefit PBC corporation. June 2022 the board voted to fire Miyoko Schinner as the CEO of Miyoko's. She was demoted to another position and stayed with the company and on the board as Chairman of the Board. There was expected to be negotiations on a separation, rearrangement with the company. That didn't happen and then the company fired Miyoko outright. 

February 2023 the company sued Miyoko for allegedly taking trade secrets and records. Later that month Miyoko hired Lisa Bloom to represent her. There will most likely be a counter suit. 

My personal opinion is that the finance guys on the board just wanted to make more profits. I think this had to do with Miyoko discontinuing the shreds and slices March 2022. "She would never approve an oil and starch product with no nutritional value. She admitted that the corporation had done so in order to “play the game.” She described the items as “compromises to the brand’s values and product guardrails.” " "In deciding to pull the product off the marketplace, we had to make the decision to take a hit to our revenues in order to re-establish our brand values.” I don't know anyone on the inside so this is just my speculation based on timing. She was fired, demoted three months later at the next board meeting.

Whatever the case the company should not have sued Miyoko. At the very minimum they should not have put everything they did in writing in the public lawsuit including her working agreement. They should have filed a vague suit then both parties could have agreed to keep all discovery, exhibits under seal. Sounds like some young finance guys thinking they're the Wolves of Wall Street making big mistakes. They are harming profits more than eliminating shreds and slices.

Company press release February 16,2023 about the lawsuit.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230216005343/en/Miyoko%E2%80%99s-Creamery-Announces-Executive-Transition

This list may not be up to date. I'm trying to verify.

Employees
  
Louis Kanganis is the company President.
Jon Blair CFO and acting CEO
Deborah Foster Co-Chief Executive Officer
Emad Halaka Co-Chief Executive Officer
May Ethan President
Pete Cohen President
René Weber Chief Operating Officer

Board of Directors

Christopher Kerr Unovis Asset Management Board Observer
Chuck Muth Self Board Member
Daniel Gluck PowerPlant Partners Board Member
James Joaquin Obvious Ventures Board Member
John Kenney Cult Capital Board Member

Investors

Bruce Friedrich Angel (individual) Minority
CPT Capital Venture Capital Minority
Ellen DeGeneres Angel (individual) Minority
Portia de Rossi Angel (individual) Minority
PowerPlant Partners Venture Capital Minority

ORIGINAL: U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-00711-DMR

Miyoko's, PBC v. Schinner

Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu
Cause: 18:1836(a) - Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Date Filed: 02/16/2023
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 880 Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

Miyoko's, PBC, a Delaware Corporation represented by Mike Costes Flesuras Mintz
3580 Carmel Mountain Rd Ste 300
San Diego, CA 92130
951-551-4557
Email: mcflesuras@mintz.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

Nicole M Rivers 858-314-1897 Email: NMRivers@mintz.com

Micha Danzig Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC 858-314-1500 Fax: 858-314-1500 Email: mdanzig@mintz.com

V.

Defendant

Miyoko Schinner represented by Alan Goldstein The Bloom Firm 26565 Agoura Road Suite 200 Calabasas, CA 91302 818-914-7319 Email: Avi@thebloomfirm.com

Lisa Bloom The Bloom Firm

Miyoko's Creamery, Miyoko Schinner, Lisa Bloom, lawsuit, complaint, mary cummins, investigative reporter, trade secrets, vegan, cheese, vegan cheese, woman, board
Miyoko's Creamery, Miyoko Schinner, Lisa Bloom, lawsuit, complaint, mary cummins, investigative reporter, trade secrets, vegan, cheese, vegan cheese, woman, board, Louis Kanganis


DOCKET BELOW. 

Date Filed # Docket Text

02/16/2023 1 COMPLAINT (with jury demand) against Miyoko Schinner (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACANDC-17999346). Filed by Miyoko's, PBC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Danzig, Micha) (Filed on 2/16/2023) Modified on 2/17/2023 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/16/2023)

02/16/2023 2 Proposed Summons. (Danzig, Micha) (Filed on 2/16/2023) (Entered: 02/16/2023)

02/16/2023 3 Rule 7.1 Disclosures by Miyoko's, PBC (Danzig, Micha) (Filed on 2/16/2023) (Entered: 02/16/2023)

02/16/2023 4 Certificate of Interested Entities by Miyoko's, PBC (Danzig, Micha) (Filed on 2/16/2023) (Entered: 02/17/2023)

02/17/2023 5 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.

Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 3/3/2023. (jrs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2023) (Entered: 02/17/2023)

02/17/2023 6 Summons Issued as to Miyoko Schinner. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2023) (Entered: 02/17/2023)

02/17/2023 7 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 5/10/2023. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/17/2023 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2023) (Entered: 02/17/2023)

02/27/2023 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan Goldstein for Defendant Miyoko Schinner (Goldstein, Alan) (Filed on 2/27/2023) (Entered: 02/27/2023)

02/27/2023 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan Goldstein for Lisa Bloom for Defendant Miyoko Schinner (Goldstein, Alan) (Filed on 2/27/2023) (Entered: 02/27/2023)

02/28/2023 Electronic filing error. Attorney Alan Goldstein Must Update ECF Profile with Current Contact Information. [err102] Re: 8 Notice of Appearance filed by Miyoko Schinner. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2023) (Entered: 02/28/2023)

02/28/2023 Electronic filing error. Each attorney of Record Must file Their Own Notice of Appearance Using Their Own ECF Sign on. Additionally, the Document Should Reflect the Correct Jurisdiction. [err102] This filing will not be processed by the clerks office. Please re-file in its entirety Re: 9 Notice of Appearance filed by Miyoko Schinner. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2023) (Entered: 02/28/2023)

03/01/2023 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa Bloom for Defendant Miyoko Schinner (Bloom, Lisa) (Filed on 3/1/2023) (Entered: 03/01/2023)

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Ed Boks of G2 Gallery is about to be sued per email. He allegedly opened someone else's mail then smeared the guy's reputation

Ed Boks, Edward Boks, lawsuit, complaint, mail, venice, california, g2 gallery
UPDATE: 12/03/2017 Ed Boks was trying to take a better paying position with Best Friends. Best Friends did their research on Boks. He will most likely not be getting the position. Back in the mid '90's Boks used to talk about "no kill" at Best Friends events. There were so many complaints about him sexually harassing women that Best Friends had to get a minder to follow him around to make sure he didn't harass the women. They have not forgotten. People reminded them about Ed Boks just to make sure. Ed Boks is a sexual harassment, discrimination lawsuit just waiting to be filed. He's a liability to any company that hires him.

ORIGINAL: People have been wondering where in LA was Ed Boks working. It seems the people at G2 Gallery didn't even Google Ed Boks' name. If they had, they would have seen that he's been fired from his last four jobs. He was also sued along with the shelters where he worked for doing some really horrible things. I'm truly shocked anyone would hire him but he's working at G2 Gallery. His job seems to be opening the mail.

https://www.theg2gallery.com/about/staff/

A complaint was just filed against him with the US Postal Service. As usual Boks admitted to tampering with someone else's mail in writing. In my lawsuit against him he also admitted in writing to all the horrible things he did. He even apologized in writing then did the same things again.

Seriously, who in their right mind would hire Ed Boks? He's a true liability. What Boks wrote about himself on the G2 Gallery website is completely false. He was fired from those jobs because he did a horrible job, lied, did illegal things, improper things.

When Yavapai Humane fired Ed Boks they gave him no warning. They didn't want to tell him before they physically kicked him out and changed the locks because they feared he'd harm the shelter, people, website... When Ed Boks was fired from LA they weren't as smart. Ed Boks wrote and posted a forged city press release claiming he won the lawsuit which I filed against him. He lost that suit. It was settled in my favor. He posted the forged press release his last day on the job when he had access to the website. Boks also stole the Department's blog when he left. I set up that blog so I know.

After Yavapai fired Boks they were in such dire financial straits that they had to let go 50% of the staff. Boks financially damaged the shelter.

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Monday, February 1, 2016

Mary Cummins Real Estate Appraiser Volunteer Activity - Los Angeles, California

I found an old list of my volunteer activities up to 1982. I decided to update it to the present and post it.

Good Shepherd Church in Beverly Hills

  • 1977-1980 Volunteered with the Shepherdaires to serve food to the elderly 
  • 1977-1978 Christmas boutique sale. Collected articles to sell, sorted, displayed and sold.
  • 1977-1980 Bake sales. I helped serve the Sunday coffee hour in the Parish Hall
  • 1978 Bike-a-thon to raise money for the church
  • 1977-1980 Corporal Works of Mercy. Under Father Priebe I helped the sick, elderly by visiting them, cleaning, making food and changing linen.
Good Shepherd Catholic School in Beverly Hills

  • 1973-1978 School raffle sales to raise money for school
  • 1973-1978 Rummage sale. Picked up articles to sell, cleaned, sorted, displayed and sold. 
  • 1977-1978 International Dinner. Helped set it up in the Parish Hall, decorated, cleaned.
McKinley Home for Boys

  • 1972-1980 Volunteered to serve food for banquets
Handicapables of Greater West Los Angeles, California Handicapables

  • 1979-1981 Helped set up the annual luncheon in the Parish Hall, served, cleaned.
Culver City Swim Team, Roadrunners

  • 1977 Raffle ticket sales to raise money.
  • 1975-1978 Host team, ran scores, helped time events, sold refreshments.
  • 1975-1978 Swim-a-thon. Collected funds per lap to raise money. 
  • 1976 Host Olympians. Helped serve the Olympians when they used our pool for workouts.
Beverly Hills YMCA

  • 1974-1975 Cartwheel-a-thon to raise money.
  • 1974-1975 Sold toffee covered peanuts. Half went to Y, rest went to YMCA camp
  • 1971-1977 Swim-a-thon to raise money.
  • 1976 Volunteer of the year dinner hostess
  • 1976 Gymnastics Fantastics show to raise money, sold programs, refreshments
  • 1976 Half-time show for Lakers game to raise awareness and funds.
Beverly Hills El Rodeo School

  • 1977-1978 Helped during lunch time to make the sets for the drama department. Designed the Spring Fling main backdrop of an angel on a cloud.
Century City Hospital

  • 1981 Volunteered to serve food to patients, ran errands, filed medical records.
Brotman Medical Center

  • 1981 Worked in the ER as an EMT. Took vital signs, assisted doctors in trauma room, updated medical files.
University of Southern California

  • 1982-1984 Worked on the suicide hotline
  • 1982 Volunteer VP of my dorm the International Hall
  • 1983-1984 Volunteer at the Spastic Children's Foundation as assistant to the aquatic therapist
  • 1983 Tutored mentally challenged children as a volunteer
Westside Children Center

  • 1990-1991 Volunteered with abused children newborn to age five.
Animal Match Rescue Team

  • 2000-2002 Took photos of shelter animals and posted them on the Internet
Los Angeles Animal Services

  • 2006-2007 Designed and built a new website for the Department, added the "Pet of the Day" feature.
  • 2000-2006 Volunteered in the shelter
  • 2003 Spay/Neuter Committee
  • 2003 Volunteer Task Force
  • 2003 Wildlife Committee
  • 2003 Spanish language committee
  • 2003 Wildlife presentations 
  • 2003 Free nuisance wildlife control
  • 2004 Adopt-a-thon Committee. Ran adopt-a-thon for WLA shelter.
  • 2004 Was Mrs. Santa for Christmas photos with pets at PetSmart
City of Los Angeles

  • 1981 Skate-a-thon to raise money for leukemia.
  • 2006 Coyote Task Force
  • 2006 Proposition F Animal Facilities Bond Committee
Cummins Real Estate Services

  • 1984-present. Pro bono real estate consulting, appraisals and brokerage.
Animal Advocates non-profit

  • 2002-present. All volunteer non-profit which rescues ill, injured and orphaned wildlife for release back to the wild; wildlife education to children, elderly and community groups; humane nuisance wildlife control; pro-animal legislation.

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Bill Cosby, William Henry Cosby sues women who claimed he allegedly assaulted them for defamation in Massachusetts,

Bill Cosby, William H Cosby, William Henry Cosby, Tamara Green, defamation, rape, drugs, date rape, counterclaim, countersuit, massachusetts, 3:14-cv-30211, mgm, december 2015, filed, district court, 
Below is copy/paste of Bill Cosby, William H Cosby's counterclaim against the women who sued him for defamation Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 89. The case is in Massachusetts because Bill Cosby lives there. That state has jurisdiction.

I'm only reporting on this case. I am not a party or witness in this case. I personally feel that Bill Cosby probably did do something untoward. There are just so many identical claims. Why else would someone bring up something so horrible years after statute of limitations to file a lawsuit? I have no proof either way. If Cosby did do these things he is accused of, he is a horrible person.

My only interest in this case is it parallels my defamation case. I reported someone for animal cruelty. They were investigated and found guilty of causing animals "pain, suffering and death" which is definition of animal cruelty. In retaliation they sued me for defamation stating my reports were "defamation."

I argued my reports to government agencies were fair and privileged. They can never be defamation. In order to show people why I was sued for defamation I posted my exact reports, photos and videographic evidence online. The appeals court ruled the reports were fair and privileged but once posted online, even though 100% the truth backed by tons of evidence and federal experts, they automatically become "defamation." They further ruled "defamation is assumed. It does not have to be proven." The entire case is just Texas good ole boy "justice" in action.

In my reply, petition for rehearing, besides bringing up the fact the judge grossly misquoted the record on most important item, I noted that if the ruling stood, people would report people for rape then get sued for defamation. Sure enough, it happened.

As I see it there will be some issues in the case. Here are but a few.

1. Statute of limitations for defamation is two years. The statute has run on some of the statements.

2. If the person defamed is a public figure, malice must be proven. One must prove the statement was defamatory and made knowing it was false for sole purpose to harm someone.

3. The statement must be something that can be proven false or true.

4. The evidence in the case also has a limitation as to time. Some evidence may be too old.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS WESTERN DIVISION

TAMARA GREEN, THERESE SERIGNESE, LINDA TRAITZ, LOUISA MORITZ, BARBARA BOWMAN, JOAN TARSHIS, and ANGELA LESLIE,

Plaintiffs, v.

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR.,
Defendant.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-30211-MGM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR.,
Counterclaim Plaintiff, v.

TAMARA GREEN, THERESE SERIGNESE, LINDA TRAITZ, LOUISA MORITZ, BARBARA BOWMAN, JOAN TARSHIS, and ANGELA LESLIE,
Counterclaim Defendants.

WILLIAM H. COSBY JR.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

(I omitted Cosby's answer and affirmative defenses. Old news. He basically admitted to the basics and denied everything else)

COUNTERCLAIMS

Counterclaim Plaintiff, William H. Cosby, Jr., by and through his undersigned counsel and in accordance with Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, brings these counterclaims against Counterclaim Defendants Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, Linda Traitz, Louisa Moritz, Barbara Bowman, Joan Tarshis, and Angela Leslie for their malicious, opportunistic, and false and defamatory accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Cosby.

1. Mr. Cosby is an internationally known American comedian, actor, and philanthropist. Beginning with his novel television work as a young African American actor on I Spy, the transformative cultural impact of The Cosby Show, and continuing throughout the past half-century as a philanthropist dedicated to promoting social justice issues with his involvement and contributions to causes from education to sickle cell anemia, Mr. Cosby prides himself in the legacy and reputation he has earned throughout his life, particularly as an entertainer and philanthropist. Mr. Cosby is an Emmy Award winner, a 1998 Kennedy Center Honors recipient, and in 2002 Mr. Cosby was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

2. The honorable legacy and reputation that Mr. Cosby has long cultivated, however, has been tarnished. Relying solely on unsubstantiated accusations, Counterclaim Defendants have engaged in a campaign to assassinate Mr. Cosby’s reputation and character by willfully, maliciously, and falsely accusing Mr. Cosby of multi-decade-old purported sexual misconduct. Counterclaim Defendants’ campaign is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to extract financial gain from him.

3. Despite the recent barrage of unsubstantiated accusations, Mr. Cosby has never been criminally charged nor found liable by any Court for any sexual misconduct. And, despite that the Counterclaim Defendants’ purported events supposedly took place over multiple decades Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 77 of 89 -78- ago, by their own admissions none of them filed a report with law enforcement regarding their stories nor have any of them asserted any civil claims for relief based on their own stories of sexual misconduct.

4. Instead, Counterclaim Defendants did not file any claims against Mr. Cosby until after he was set to make a return to television by starring in a new family comedy television series on the National Broadcasting Company (“NBC”). Once news of Mr. Cosby’s television resurgence became well publicized, in 2014, each Counterclaim Defendant repeatedly and maliciously published their unsubstantiated stories through multiple interviews and posts on social media platforms.

5. Then, once Martin Singer defended Mr. Cosby by denying certain false accusations of sexual misconduct volleyed against him, Counterclaim Defendants filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Cosby to silence his defenses and monetize their false accusations.

6. Mr. Cosby brings these counterclaims to redress the injury and damages caused by Counterclaim Defendants’ malicious and unlawful conduct. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Mr. Cosby’s counterclaims occurred in this District. Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 78 of 89 -79- PARTIES

9. Counterclaim Plaintiff William H. Cosby, Jr. is an internationally known American comedian, actor, and philanthropist. Mr. Cosby resides within this District.

10. Counterclaim Defendant Tamara Green is an adult individual residing and domiciled in California.

11. Counterclaim Defendant Therese Serignese is an adult individual residing and domiciled in Florida.

12. Counterclaim Defendant Linda Traitz is an adult individual residing and domiciled in Florida.

13. Counterclaim Defendant Louisa Moritz is an adult individual residing and domiciled in California.

14. Counterclaim Defendant Barbara Bowman is an adult individual residing and domiciled in Arizona.

15. Counterclaim Defendant Joan Tarshis is an adult individual residing and domiciled in New York.

16. Counterclaim Defendant Angela Leslie is an adult individual residing and domiciled in Michigan. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

17. At or around the beginning of 2014, Mr. Cosby entered into an agreement with NBC to star in a new family comedy television series. Once news of Mr. Cosby’s television resurgence became well publicized, in 2014, upon information and belief, each Counterclaim Defendant engaged in a campaign to assassinate Mr. Cosby’s reputation and character by Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 79 of 89 -80- willfully, maliciously, and falsely accusing Mr. Cosby of multi-decade-old purported sexual misconduct in an opportunistic attempt to extract financial gain from their allegations.

18. Counterclaim Defendant Green has maliciously and knowingly published multiple false accusations that Mr. Cosby sexually assaulted her. For example, on at least two occasions in 2014, at least once in an interview with Newsweek, Ms. Green participated in interviews where she claimed that Mr. Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her over 40 years ago.

19. Mr. Cosby neither drugged nor sexually assaulted Ms. Green. Aside from Ms. Green’s bare allegations, her claims of a sexual assault that purportedly occurred over 40 years ago remain unsubstantiated. Ms. Green admits that she never filed a report with law enforcement regarding her story nor has she asserted any civil claim for relief based on Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual misconduct. Instead, upon information and belief, Ms. Green made these false statements in an effort to cause damage to Mr. Cosby’s reputation and to extract financial gains by means of them.

20. Counterclaim Defendant Serignese has also published false accusations that Mr. Cosby sexually assaulted her. For example, in or around November 2014, Ms. Serignese reached out to the Huffington Post and falsely asserted that Mr. Cosby drugged and raped her over 38 years ago, purportedly in 1976.

21. According to Ms. Serignese’s November 2014 story, she purportedly called Mr. Cosby after the alleged incident at her mother’s encouragement that “maybe [Mr. Cosby]’ll take care of you.” She subsequently accepted housing from Mr. Cosby at a Hilton penthouse for three weeks. Then, according to Ms. Serignese, in 1985 she contacted Mr. Cosby again as she was going through a divorce and ended up engaging in another sexual encounter with him. In 1993, Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 80 of 89 -81- Ms. Serignese claims, she again contacted Mr. Cosby to ask for and accept money from him after being involved in a traffic accident.

22. Mr. Cosby neither drugged nor sexually assaulted Ms. Serignese. Like the other Counterclaim Defendants, Ms. Serignese admits that she never filed a report with law enforcement regarding her story nor has she asserted any civil claim for relief based on her story of Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual misconduct. Instead, upon information and belief, Ms. Serignese made these false statements in an effort to cause damage to Mr. Cosby’s reputation and to extract financial gains by means of them.

23. In or around November 2014, Counterclaim Defendant Traitz published at least three false statements and accusations that Mr. Cosby sexually assaulted her over 40 years ago. Like her other Counterclaim Defendants, Mr. Cosby did not sexually assault Ms. Traitz. Likewise, by Ms. Traitz’s own admission, she never filed a report with law enforcement regarding her story nor has she asserted any civil claim for relief based on her story of Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual misconduct. Instead, upon information and belief, Ms. Traitz made these false statements in an effort to cause damage to Mr. Cosby’s reputation and to extract financial gains by means of them.

24. Counterclaim Defendant Moritz published false statements and accusations that Mr. Cosby sexually assaulted her through a public statement on or about November 20, 2014. Consistent with her other Counterclaim Defendants’ scheme, Ms. Moritz’s uncorroborated and bare assertions of sexual assault that purportedly occurred over 45 years ago remain unsubstantiated. Ms. Moritz’s fabrication is highlighted by the fact that, despite her repeated accounts that she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Cosby on set while waiting to make an appearance on “The Tonight Show,” Mr. Cosby was neither on the set of The Tonight Show nor Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 81 of 89 -82- was he physically present at the location she alleges the assault took place. Instead, Mr. Cosby did not sexually assault Ms. Moritz. Likewise, by Ms. Moritz’s own admission, she never filed a report with law enforcement regarding her story nor has she asserted any civil claim for relief based on her story of Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual misconduct. Instead, upon information and belief, Ms. Moritz made these false statements in an effort to cause damage to Mr. Cosby’s reputation and to extract financial gains by means of them.

25. Counterclaim Defendant Bowman published false, uncorroborated, and multidecade old allegations of sexual assault against Mr. Cosby at least twice in 2014. Once through an interview with the Daily Mail on or around October 27, 2014, and again through an article she authored that was published online on or around November 13, 2014. In her interview with the Daily Mail, Ms. Bowman admitted that her new allegations were meant to address her “fear [] that [Mr. Cosby] will actually hit the NBC airways again;” indeed she brags that “the timing couldn’t be better. It sickens me to think he’ll be on TV again.”

26. Counterclaim Defendant Tarshis published false, uncorroborated, and multidecade old allegations of sexual assault against Mr. Cosby by sending her “old friend” a written statement that was published online on or around November 16, 2014. Likewise, Counterclaim Defendant Leslie published false, uncorroborated, and multi-decade old allegations of sexual assault against Mr. Cosby by giving an interview to the New York Daily News on or around November 20, 2014.

27. Like all the other Counterclaim Defendants, however, Mr. Cosby did not sexually assault Ms. Bowman, Ms. Tarshis, nor Ms. Leslie. And, like all the other Counterclaim Defendants, by their own admissions, neither Ms. Bowman, Ms. Tarshis, nor Ms. Leslie filed a report with law enforcement regarding their stories nor have any of them asserted any civil claim Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 82 of 89 -83- for relief based on their story of Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual misconduct. Instead, upon information and belief, Ms. Bowman, Ms. Tarshis, and Ms. Leslie, along with their fellow Counterclaim Defendants, have made these false statements in an effort to cause damage to Mr. Cosby’s reputation and to extract financial gains by means of them.

28. Counterclaim Defendants’ intentional and malicious campaign to defame Mr. Cosby has caused him substantial injury. As a result of their false, opportunistic, and malicious allegations, Mr. Cosby’s reputation has been irretrievably damaged and his planned reemergence to network television destroyed as they intended. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Defamation Per Se Against All Counterclaim Defendants)

29. Mr. Cosby repeats and re-alleges, as if fully set forth herein, the responses, affirmative defenses, and allegations of all of the preceding paragraphs.

30. At all relevant times, Mr. Cosby enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of his neighbors, as well as others in the community.

31. In or around February 2014 and November 2014, and at various times continuing through the present day, Ms. Green published to one or more third parties false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Cosby as set forth above.

32. In or around November 2014, and at various times continuing through the present day, Ms. Serignese published to one or more third parties false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Cosby as set forth above.

33. In or around November 2014, and at various times continuing through the present day, Ms. Traitz published to one or more third parties at least three false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Cosby as set forth above. Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 83 of 89 -84-

34. In or around November 2014, and at various times continuing through the present day, Ms. Moritz published to one or more third parties at least three false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Cosby as set forth above.

35. In or around October and November 2014, and at various times continuing through the present day, Ms. Bowman published to one or more third parties at least three false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Cosby as set forth above.

36. In or around November 2014, and at various times continuing through the present day, Ms. Tarshis published to one or more third parties at least three false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Cosby as set forth above.

37. In or around November 2014, and at various times continuing through the present day, Ms. Leslie published to one or more third parties at least three false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Cosby as set forth above.

38. Each Counterclaim Defendant intentionally made and published the false and defamatory statements with actual malice, knowledge of, and reckless disregard as to the falsity of those statements because each Counterclaim Defendant knew that Mr. Cosby neither drugged nor sexually assaulted them.

39. Counterclaim Defendants’ false statements were defamatory because they held Mr. Cosby up to hatred, distrust, contempt, disgrace, scorn, and ridicule among considerable and respectable segments of the community, including from the media coverage and public reaction to Counterclaim Defendants’ false and defamatory statements.

40. Counterclaim Defendants’ false statements were defamatory per se because they falsely impute that Mr. Cosby engaged in criminal conduct. Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 84 of 89 -85-

41. Counterclaim Defendants’ false and defamatory statements have proximately caused and continue to cause Mr. Cosby to suffer substantial injuries and damages including, but not limited to, tarnish of reputation and public image, delay and/or cancellation of pending contracts, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, damages to property, business, trade, profession, and occupation. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Defamation Against All Counterclaim Defendants)

42. Mr. Cosby repeats and re-alleges, as if fully set forth herein, the responses, affirmative defenses, and allegations of all of the preceding paragraphs.

43. At all relevant times, Mr. Cosby enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of his neighbors, as well as others in the community.

44. Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, Linda Traitz, Louisa Moritz, Barbara Bowman, Joan Tarshis, and Angela Leslie have each published to one or more third parties false and defamatory statements concerning Mr. Cosby as set forth above.

45. Each Counterclaim Defendant intentionally made and published the false and defamatory statements with actual malice, knowledge of, and reckless disregard as to the falsity of those statements because each Counterclaim Defendant knew that Mr. Cosby neither drugged nor sexually assaulted them.

46. Counterclaim Defendants’ false statements were defamatory because they held Mr. Cosby up to hatred, distrust, contempt, disgrace, scorn, and ridicule among considerable and respectable segments of the community, including from the media coverage and public reaction to Counterclaim Defendants’ false and defamatory statements. Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 85 of 89 -86-

47. Counterclaim Defendants’ false and defamatory statements have proximately caused and continue to cause Mr. Cosby to suffer substantial injuries and damages including, but not limited to, tarnish of reputation and public image, delay and/or cancellation of pending contracts, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, damages to property, business, trade, profession, and occupation. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Tortious Interference Against All Counterclaim Defendants)

48. Mr. Cosby repeats and re-alleges, as if fully set forth herein, the responses, affirmative defenses, and allegations of all of the preceding paragraphs.

49. At or before the beginning of 2014, Mr. Cosby had an existing contract or an expectation of a contract to feature in a new family comedy series on NBC. Mr. Cosby also had existing contracts or an expectation of contract with Netflix at that time.

50. Each Counterclaim Defendant knew of Mr. Cosby’s existing or pending 2014 contracts with NBC and Netflix because, among other things, Mr. Cosby’s television resurgence became well publicized in the media.

51. Each Counterclaim Defendant induced both NBC and Netflix to postpone or cancel their contracts with Mr. Cosby by engaging in a campaign to assassinate Mr. Cosby’s reputation and character by willfully, maliciously, and falsely accusing Mr. Cosby of multidecade-old purported sexual misconduct in an opportunistic attempt to extract financial gain from their allegations.

52. Counterclaim Defendants’ unlawful conduct has proximately caused and continues to cause Mr. Cosby to suffer substantial injuries and damages including, but not Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 86 of 89 -87- limited to, tarnish of reputation and public image, delay and/or cancellation of pending contracts, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, damages to property, business, trade, profession, and occupation. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Counterclaim Defendants)

53. Mr. Cosby repeats and re-alleges, as if fully set forth herein, the responses, affirmative defenses, and allegations of all of the preceding paragraphs.

54. Each Counterclaim Defendant intentionally engaged in a campaign to assassinate Mr. Cosby’s reputation and character by willfully, maliciously, and falsely accusing Mr. Cosby of engaging in sexual misconduct in an opportunistic attempt to extract financial gain from their allegations.

55. Counterclaim Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous and beyond all possible bounds of decency because, among other things, falsely accusing another of sexual assault is morally repugnant and subjected Mr. Cosby to severe emotional distress from public ridicule, shame, and contempt of such a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

56. As a result of Counterclaim Defendants’ intentional, extreme, outrageous, and morally repugnant conduct, Mr. Cosby has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress including, but not limited to, tarnish of reputation and public image, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, and shock and harm to his peace of mind by Counterclaim Defendants’ intentional invasion of Mr. Cosby’s mental and emotional tranquility. Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 121 Filed 12/14/15 Page 87 of 89 -88- WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff William H. Cosby, Jr. respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against Counterclaim Defendants Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, Linda Traitz, Louisa Moritz, Barbara Bowman, Joan Tarshis, and Angela Leslie (collectively “Counterclaim Defendants”) as follows: A. An award for compensatory damages to the maximum extent permitted by law; E. An award for punitive damages to the maximum extent permitted by law; B. A permanent injunction enjoining Counterclaim Defendants from continuing to publish its defamatory statements; C. An injunction requiring Counterclaim Defendants to publically issue a statement and press release retracting and correcting its defamatory statements; D. An award of all costs and fees in this action, including attorneys’ fees and preand post-judgment interest; and E. All other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: December 14, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
 By: s/ John J. Egan Christopher Tayback Marshall M. Searcy III
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street,
10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
(213) 443 3000
John J. Egan
EGAN, FLANAGAN & COHEN, PC
67 Market Street PO Box 9035 Springfield, MA 01102-9035
413-737-0260

Here is link to original case against Bill Cosby
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4UW1HbzRVckNwVkU/view?usp=sharing

Here is link to Bill Cosby's counterclaim
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4S1BTUS04dlNVb2M/view?usp=sharing

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Saturday, February 14, 2015

James, Catherine Emmi vs Chapman University, Jim Doti - non-profit donor fraud

Jim Doti Chapman University, James Emmi, Catherine Emmi

I heard about this story earlier today when I was researching how people donate to universities. This LA Times article sums it up. Jim Doti representing Chapman University started asking wealthy James and Catherine Emmi for donations. Over the years Jim Doti asked for more and more. Finally the Emmis said no. Jim Doti knowing that James Emmi was 98 and not quite all there then took advantage of his diminishing condition and had him sign an irrevocable bequest agreement to give $12,000,000. The Emmis are suing to get back their first installment donation and $3,000,000 in damages. What Jim Doti did as per this lawsuit is disgusting. Jim Doti wined and dined the couple, gave them awards, lots of positive press, invited them to events, put the husband on a board...all to butter them up to fleece the couple. Jim Doti took advantage of a generous, wealthy old man. Sickening.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-newport-couple-want-donation-back-1-20150213-story.html

Below is just the text of the body of the lawsuit. I omitted the causes of action as they were repetitive. You just need to read the general allegations. Complaint 30-2015-00769986 Judge Linda Marks. Here is the file as pdf.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4dlJrOTdydGY4MDA/view?usp=sharing

James G. Bohm (SBN 132430)
jbohm@bohmwildish.com
Annie Ventocilla Won, Esq. (SBN 249719)
Aventocilla@bohmwildish.com
BOHM WILDISH LLP
Park Tower, Suite 700
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (714) 384-6500
Facsimile: (714) 384-6501
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE – CENTRAL DISTRICT

JAMES EMMI, an individual; and
CATHERINE EMMI, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, a California
nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendant.
CASE NO.:
[UNLIMITED JURISDICTION]
COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS JAMES
EMMI AND CATHERINE EMMI FOR:
(1) BREACH OF WRITTEN
CONTRACT;
(2) BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT;
(3) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
FAIR DEALING;
(4) FRAUD & DECEIT– INTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATION;
(5) FRAUD & DECEIT– FALSE
PROMISE;
(6) UNJUST ENRICHMENT;
(7) UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES [Bus. & Prof.
Code § 17200];
(8) DECLARATORY RELIEF;
(9) NEGLIGENCE;
(10) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
(11) VIOLATION OF PROBATE CODE
§859;
(12) VIOLATION OF CAL. WEL. & INST.
CODE §§151610.70; AND
(13) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONS; AND
(14) VIOLATION OF CAL. FAMILY
CODE §1100
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]-2-
COMPLAINT

NOW COME Plaintiffs, JAMES EMMI (“JAMES”), an individual, and CATHERINE EMMI
(“CATHERINE”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs” or the “EMMIS”), an individual, who allege as
follows for their complaint against Defendant, CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY (“CHAPMAN”), a
California nonprofit corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive:
1. Plaintiffs JAMES and CATHERINE EMMI reside in the City of Corona Del Mar,
County of Orange, State of California. Plaintiffs JAMES and CATHERINE have been parties to a
marital contract at all relevant times herein.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

2. At all relevant times herein, CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY was a nonprofit corporation
doing business in the State of California with its principal place of business located in the County of
Orange, State of California. CHAPMAN is a private university offering undergraduate and graduate
education for students.
3. At all relevant times herein, James Doti was, and is, the President of CHAPMAN.
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that at all times mentioned in
this Complaint, James Doti was authorized to make decisions and perform acts on behalf of
CHAPMAN as its President.
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that at all times mentioned in
this Complaint, James Doti was an agent of CHAPMAN as its President.
6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that all times mentioned herein,
Defendant CHAPMAN, along with its agents and representatives, had knowledge of the marital
contract between JAMES and CATHERINE EMMI.
7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,
representative, partnership, or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names.
Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have
been ascertained.
8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the fictitiously
named DOE Defendants performed, participated in, and/or abetted the acts alleged herein, and is -3-
COMPLAINT

responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages herein
alleged were legally caused by those Defendants, among others.
9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned
herein, the Defendants, including DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were agents, servants,
employees, or affiliates of other Defendants and in doing the things alleged herein were acting in the
course and scope of the authority of such agency, service, employment, affiliation, or with the
permission, knowledge, approval and consent of the other Defendants in that each and every act of
each said Defendant was ratified by the others. Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon
allege, that each of the DOE Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein
alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were legally caused by those Defendants,
among others.
10. Venue is proper in this Court because the Defendants has its principal place of
business and/or resides in the County of Orange. This case involves damages in excess of the
minimum jurisdiction of this court, and hence this is an unlimited jurisdiction case.
11. In and around 2008, CHAPMAN solicited individuals, companies and donors for
gifts and pledges to the “Science Building Campaign”. The campaign was launched to raise funds
for the construction of CHAPMAN’s new Center for Science and Technology.
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that in and around 2008,
CHAPMAN was also involved in raising funds for other science- related projects, including a health
sciences campus that it was planning to construct off-campus in Irvine, California.
13. At all times relevant herein, the EMMIS have been involved in donating monetary
gifts to educational institutions, like University of California, Irvine and Cal Tech, for scholarships
and facilities to further science education. As an engineer, Plaintiff JAMES EMMI, has had a
lifelong commitment to furthering science and technology in the engineering field because it was
this profession and skill set that made his own financial success possible.
14. On or about January 17, 2008, JAMES made a $50,000.00 cash gift to CHAPMAN
for the Science Building Campaign. -4-
COMPLAINT

15. Following JAMES’ $50,000 donation to the science campaign, Plaintiffs are
informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN, through President James Doti (hereinafter,
“President Doti”), began inviting the EMMIS to concerts and events at CHAPMAN with the
intention of soliciting additional donations for the university and the science campaign. In addition,
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that President Doti also invited the EMMIs to
numerous lunches and dinners with the same intention of soliciting further monetary gifts to the
university.
16. In July 2009, CHAPMAN’s Director of Principal Gifts sent Plaintiff JAMES a letter
notifying him that the CHAPMAN trustee real estate committee had “re-scaled the science complex
plans to a more reasonable $70 million project from the original projection of $120+ million.” In the
letter, CHAPMAN proposed a $500,000 estate pledge to JAMES, along with three possible types of
consideration JAMES could receive in return for his gift, i.e. the naming of a physical space,
permanent recognition of equipment at the building science building, or endowing a scholarship
program at CHAPMAN (“Pledge Proposal #1).
17. On or about April 6, 2012, JAMES entered a Bequest Agreement with CHAPMAN,
which provided that he would contribute an additional $450,000 to the already donated $50,000 cash
gift, to the Science Building Campaign. The total donation to the campaign per the Bequest
Agreement was $500,000.
18. JAMES met his obligations under the Bequest Agreement and contributed the
promised $500,000 to the Science Building Campaign.
19. Following that second substantial donation, in and around March 5, 2012,
CHAPMAN recruited JAMES to Chapman’s Schmid College of Science and Technology
Leadership Cabinet. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that CHAPMAN intentionally recruited
JAMES to join the leadership cabinet as a means of soliciting JAMES for more monetary
contributions, gifts, and pledges to CHAPMAN.
20. Nine months later, in and around November 2012, CHAPMAN notified the EMMIS
that the EMMIS were receiving the CHAPMAN Citizens of the Year Award. The award was
presented at CHAPMAN’s annual American Celebration event. That year, the EMMIS were -5-
COMPLAINT

featured on the cover of the event’s fliers and in numerous publications, including the Orange
County Register, several Chapman publications and the Daily Pilot, among other newspapers and
media outlets. Moreover, the EMMIS were honored on stage at the prestigious American
Celebration event, which was attended by hundreds of Orange County’s elite.
21. After four years of CHAPMAN’s constant solicitation efforts, which had garnered
them at least half a million dollars in gifts, CHAPMAN yet again approached the EMMIS with a
proposal to donate, at a minimum, $5 million to the Center for Science and Technology campaign.
22. In and around November 2012, CHAPMAN provided the EMMIS with a written
proposal requesting an investment of either $5 million or $10 million dollars, to be paid over a tenyear
period, to the School of Computational Sciences and Engineering (“Pledge Proposal #2”). This
proposal sought $4.5 million more than Pledge Proposal #1.
23. Pledge Proposal #2 offered naming recognition on either the entire School of
Computational Sciences and Engineering (in return for the $10 million investment), or on the Hall
of Technology (in return for the $5 million investment). In addition to naming privileges, the
proposal included a detailed description of the “full-scale media effort” that would result from such
donations, which would include announcements in publications such as the Orange County Register,
the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education, Chronicle of
Philanthropy, The Orange County Business Journal, and Chapman University publications. Further,
the proposal promised the EMMI family would be recognized in extensive broadcast news media
coverage and press conferences, newspapers and periodicals, appropriate recognition at the new
science facility and at receptions, special evidence and dinners to honor the donors.
24. On November 27, 2012, JAMES sent CHAPMAN a letter rejecting
25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Defendant CHAPMAN had
knowledge of Plaintiff JAMES’s concerns regarding his future health and the impact of a $5 million
or $10 million commitment on his financial state in late 2012.
Pledge Proposal
#2, citing his age of 96, his questionable future health and the substantial financial considerations
the proposed pledge required (i.e. either $5 million or $10 million donation over ten years).
26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that, in 2012, Defendant -6-
COMPLAINT

CHAPMAN knew that JAMES was concerned about a ten year commitment to donate either $5
million or $10 million dollars because his health was “questionable” and the financial consideration
was “quite heavy”.
27. Despite Plaintiff’s express rejection of Pledge Proposal #2, Defendant CHAPMAN
continued to hound the EMMIS for donations to their Center for Science and Technology campaign.
In early 2013, CHAPMAN’s President Doti continued to contact the EMMIS pressing for a massive
multi-million dollar donation to the School of Computational Sciences and Engineering, describing
the donation as an “investment”, a contract, and that the gift would result in naming recognition.
28. In and around 2013, CHAPMAN also sought gifts from CATHERINE EMMI as
well.
29. On April 18, 2013, CHAPMAN’s Vice President, Sheryl Bourgeois, sent
CATHERINE EMMI a letter confirming yet another contribution of $1000 to CHAPMAN’s
President’s Circle.
30. Following CATHERINE’s April donation, CHAPMAN wrote to the EMMIS seeking
donations in excess of $15,000 for the purchase of tables at the university’s American Celebration
event. Thereafter, the EMMIS generously contributed $100,000 to CHAPMAN’s 32nd
31. As if the $600,000+ the EMMIS donated to CHAPMAN was not enough,
CHAPMAN continued to prey on the EMMIS for millions of dollars despite JAMES’s emphatic
rejection of a donation beyond $500,000.
American
Celebration. These donations were platinum sponsorship level contributions, which purchased two
tables in the front row for the event.
32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that between 2012 and 2013,
Plaintiff James was 97 years old and more susceptible to undue influence and persuasion.
33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN, in particular,
President Doti, had knowledge of JAMES’s confusion regarding the details of CHAPMAN’s pledge
proposals, including the amount of the pledge, the timeframe for payment, the financial impact such
a pledge would have on JAMES and CATHERINE, and the timeframe for the construction of the
project. -7-
COMPLAINT

34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN preyed on
Plaintiff JAMES for large donations, against his wishes, because they knew that JAMES was more
susceptible to inducement and confusion.
35. In and around 2013, CHAPMAN presented the EMMIS with a third proposal
requesting a financial investment of a whopping $12 million to be paid over a ten-year period, in
exchange for the same naming rights as those offered in Pledge Proposal #2– i.e. The James and
Catherine Emmi Hall of Technology and Engineering (“Pledge Proposal #3”). Pledge Proposal #3
also included the promise of a full-scale media effort to publicize the donation and included concept
art for the proposed Emmi Hall.
36. Defendant’s Pledge Proposal #3 offered the EMMIS the naming of the Hall of
Technology and Engineering in exchange for donating $12 million, rather than the naming of the
entire Center for Science and Technology – a recognition valued at $10 million in Pledge Proposal
#2. Likewise, Pledge Proposal #2 offered the EMMIS the naming of the Hall of Technology and
Engineering in exchange for a donation of only $5 million, rather than $12 million.
37. Plaintiffs did not accept Pledge Proposal #3.
38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Defendant CHAPMAN
valued the naming of the Hall of Technology and Engineering at $5 million, rather than $12 million.
In reality, the value was for far less than $5 million.
39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN’s Pledge
Proposal #3 offered a pledge contract with insufficient consideration because the naming of the Hall
was only valued by CHAPMAN at $5 million, rather than $12 million. In reality, the naming of the
Hall was worth far less.
40. Thereafter, CHAPMAN continued to push the EMMIS for the $12 million gift
stating the EMMIS “deserved to leave a legacy”. CHAPMAN’s tactics for persuading the EMMIS
included “wining and dining” them, inviting them to special events at CHAPMAN, sending them
personal cards and notes and even going as far as referring to the EMMIS as “family”. President
Doti intentionally showered the EMMIS with compliments and even went as far as requesting a
photograph of JAMES to place in his office because JAMES was “like a brother to him”. Defendant -8-
COMPLAINT

CHAPMAN’s conduct towards the EMMIS convinced the EMMIS that they could trust
CHAPMAN’s promises and representations.
41. Defendant CHAPMAN’s conduct towards the EMMIS also caused the EMMIS to
rely on the promises and representations of CHAPMAN as true and correct.
42. Defendant CHAPMAN’s aggressive pursuit of Plaintiffs finally wore down 98 year
old JAMES in September 2013.
43. In and around September 2013, less than a year after JAMES had rejected Pledge
Proposal #2, CHAPMAN’s President Doti visited the EMMIS at their home for tea to again plead
for a $12 million gift to CHAPMAN’s Center for Science and Technology. During that visit,
President Doti represented that: (1) the $12 million donation would be divided into four equal
payments due at the end of each year starting in 2013; (2) JAMES’s donated monies would be used
solely
44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Defendant CHAPMAN,
after noting signs of deterioration and vulnerability in JAMES, preyed on Plaintiff JAMES for a
multi-million donation.
for the construction of a single technology and engineering building, on the CHAPMAN
campus in Orange, California, to be named after the EMMIS; and (3) that JAMES’s building would
be constructed within that four year period ending in December 2016, to ensure the likelihood that
JAMES would live to see his legacy at the university.
45. At all times herein, Plaintiff JAMES expressed his intention that any money he
donated to CHAPMAN for the construction of the Emmi Hall for Technology and Engineering
would be made under the condition that his building would be constructed while he was alive.
46. Lured by CHAPMAN’s promises and representations and vulnerable to persuasion
and inducement because of his old age, JAMES, against his will, agreed to donate $12 million to
CHAPMAN. At no time, however, did CHAPMAN set forth that this donation would be
irrevocable. Similarly, at no time did Plaintiff JAMES agree to make this donation irrevocable.
47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that on or about September 5,
2013, CHAPMAN prepared an Irrevocable Pledge Agreement to the Center for Science and
Technology (the “Irrevocable Pledge”) that was purportedly entered into between JAMES and -9-
COMPLAINT

CHAPMAN, committing JAMES to an irrevocable pledge of $12 million to be paid no later than
December 31, 2016.
48. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Defendant CHAPMAN
valued the naming of the Hall of Technology and Engineering at $5 million, rather than $12 million.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN’s Irrevocable Pledge lacked
consideration because it sought a donation of $12 million in exchange for the naming of a Hall that
was only valued by CHAPMAN at $5 million, and in reality was worth far less, rather than $12
million.
49. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that the money purportedly
pledged to CHAPMAN, by JAMES, was community property.
50. Plaintiffs have no recollection of ever signing the Irrevocable Pledge, either as a
donor or as a witness.
51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that they were not given the
opportunity to have their attorneys review the Irrevocable Pledge.
52. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Plaintiff JAMES did not
understand the terms of the Irrevocable Pledge at the time of the purported signing because of his
old age and confusion regarding the terms of the pledge he discussed with President Doti.
53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Defendant CHAPMAN did
not explain the terms of the Irrevocable Pledge fully or accurately to Plaintiff before JAMES
purportedly signed it. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that in fact, Defendant
CHAPMAN misrepresented the terms of the Irrevocable Pledge to JAMES.
54. Plaintiff CATHERINE did not read, accept or consent to the terms of the Irrevocable
Pledge.
55. Plaintiff CATHERINE did not accept or consent to the terms of any contract, either
written or oral, between Plaintiff JAMES and CHAPMAN for the donation of $12 million to the
university.
56. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that the Irrevocable Pledge is
not an enforceable contract because there was no meeting of the minds between Plaintiff JAMES -10-
COMPLAINT

and Defendant CHAPMAN.
57. Neither Plaintiff JAMES nor CATHERINE agreed to the terms of the Irrevocable
Pledge.
58. Plaintiff CATHERINE EMMI never consented to the transfer of any community
property funds to Defendant CHAPMAN through the Irrevocable Pledge or any other agreement or
contract between JAMES and Defendant.
59. Plaintiff JAMES did not intend to bind himself or his estate to a $12 million donation
to CHAPMAN without the possibility of being released from that commitment.
60. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Plaintiff JAMES would not
have agreed to donate more than two times the amount of Pledge Proposal #2, in exchange for
naming rights valued at $5 million, and no guarantee of a media effort, without consulting his
counsel first and without the consent of his wife, CATHERINE.
61. On or about September 20, 2013, JAMES authorized The Northern Trust Company
to transfer $1,875,579.06 in securities to CHAPMAN as a gift for the School of Computational
Sciences and Engineering without the written consent of CATHERINE.
62. Thereafter, on or about October 17, 2013, JAMES authorized Northern Trust
Company to transfer an additional $1,124,420.94 to CHAPMAN as a cash gift for the School of
Computational Sciences and Engineering without the written consent of CATHERINE.
63. As of October 2013, JAMES donated $3 million to the School of Computational
Sciences and Engineering, not including his previous hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations
for other CHAPMAN- related events and campaigns.
64. On October 30, 2013, CHAPMAN sent the EMMIS a letter confirming the transfer
of the EMMIS’ $3 million transfer from Northern Trust.
65. Despite the extraordinary gift of $12 million and the promise of a “full-scale media
effort” recognizing JAMES’s supreme generosity, CHAPMAN completely trivialized JAMES’s
significant donation in the face of the public. For example, CHAPMAN officials failed to recognize
JAMES either on stage or in the program at the 2013 American Celebration event. Instead,
CHAPMAN focused all of its energies on recognizing a $15 million donor to the CHAPMAN health -11-
COMPLAINT

sciences project. Further, the few instances in which CHAPMAN did recognize JAMES’s donation,
CHAPMAN failed to even acknowledge the correct amount of JAMES’s pledge. For instance, at the
“Christmas at the Ritz” event, CHAPMAN announced that JAMES had donated “in excess of $10
million”, rather than announcing the $12 million pledge. Moreover, the Orange County Register,
Daily Pilot and Chapman publications, all referenced JAMES’s gift as being “in excess of $10
million”, instead of the actual amount of the pledge. This complete failure to highlight JAMES’s
pledge minimizes the importance of the donation to the university, disregards CHAPMAN’s
obligations to conduct a full-scale media effort of JAMES’s contribution, and places into question
the actual amount of JAMES’s pledge.
66. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN’s publication
of JAMES’s pledge as being “in excess of $10 million” acknowledges that JAMES’s commitment to
CHAPMAN was not irrevocably set at $12 million. Instead, JAMES’s pledge amount was subject to
change and release.
67. In early 2014, approximately one year after JAMES’s donation of the first $3 million
to CHAPMAN, JAMES asked President Doti about the status of construction on the Emmi Hall of
Technology and Engineering, for which his donations were contributed. In response, President Doti
vaguely responded that he had “other ideas”, that CHAPMAN had “made plans for a larger
building,” and that he had “other ideas…it’s a long story.” Thereafter, every time JAMES inquired
about the construction of Emmi Hall, he was met with excuses for why the building was not being
constructed.
68. At all time relevant herein, CHAPMAN represented that JAMES was the lead
investor and donor in the Center of Science and Technology project.
69. In May 2014, CHAPMAN surprised the EMMIS with yet another pledge proposal.
Pledge Proposal #4 sought to increase JAMES’s funding level to $20 million, in exchange for the
purported naming of the Center for Science and Technology and recognition of their gift as the lead
gift of the campaign, “undoubtedly garnering additional headlines and media attention.” Plaintiff
JAMES immediately rejected Pledge Proposal #4.
70. Prior to May 2014, CHAPMAN had already represented to JAMES that he was the -12-
COMPLAINT

lead investor in the Center for Science and Technology project.
71. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Defendant CHAPMAN
misrepresented that JAMES was the top donor at CHAPMAN at all times relevant herein.
72. In May 2014, CHAPMAN provided JAMES with a Center for Science and
Technology Progress Report. The progress report estimated the cost of the construction for the
center at nearly $130 million and outlined that roughly $34 million had been pledged or contributed
to the project, leaving $100 million needed to fully fund the construction costs. Moreover, the report
provided that CHAPMAN was funding $80 million for the construction leaving $20 million needed
“for the project to commence”. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that prior to
May 2014, JAMES was told by CHAPMAN that the Emmi Hall of Technology and Engineering
would be completed by December 2016.
73. In September 2014, CHAPMAN sent another progress report, this time including
renderings of the proposed Center for Science and Technology project and a proposed budget and
timeline showing a longer design phase than originally anticipated on the project. This September
progress report showed continued delay in the construction of the Emmi Hall of Technology and
Engineering.
74. On September 26, 2014, CHAPMAN sent JAMES a letter notifying him that the Real
Estate Committee had approved the Center for Science and Technology building project and that the
next step in the process was to complete blue prints for the project.
75. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that the Center for Science and
Technology campaign began in at least 2012, when JAMES made his first $500,000 donation.
Thereafter, in 2013, JAMES agreed to donate $12 million to the campaign in reliance on the
promise that the construction of the Emmi Hall would be completed in four years. One year later,
however, in 2014, not even one blueprint had been prepared for the Emmi Hall.
76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN at all relevant
times herein never intended to construct and complete the Emmi Hall by December 2016 as
represented to JAMES EMMI in and around 2013.
77. To date, CHAPMAN has not provided a date for when construction will begin on the -13-
COMPLAINT
=
Center for Science and Technology, much less the Emmi Hall of Technology and Engineering.
78. CHAPMAN’s non-stop pressure to make sizeable donations to CHAPMAN,
CHAPMAN’s complete lack of progress in constructing Emmi Hall as promised, and the
abandonment of media coverage efforts by CHAPMAN recognizing JAMES’s massive $12 million
pledge, all breached the agreement between the EMMIS and CHAPMAN.
79. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that without any blue prints or
ground breaking on the Emmi Hall construction, it was not possible for CHAPMAN to comply with
its obligation and promise to JAMES that his building would be completed by December 2016.
80. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that on or about October 14,
2014, a CHAPMAN agent had a conversation with the EMMIS’ estate planning attorney, Michael
Lawler, regarding JAMES’s pledge. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Mr.
Lawler, without the consent or instruction of JAMES, made representations to CHAPMAN that
JAMES was not withdrawing his pledge to the Center for Science and Technology, but instead was
seeking additional time to pay the remaining pledge amount of $9 million.
81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Michael Lawler
misrepresented to JAMES that he would act as his counsel to support his efforts to be released from
the $12 million pledge to CHAPMAN.
82. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that Michael Lawler, in and
around October 2014, knowingly misrepresented to CHAPMAN that JAMES: (1) intended to satisfy
his $12 million pledge to CHAPMAN; (2) was committed to the gift; and (3) that his sole concern
regarding the gift was the timing of the gift.
83. The EMMIS did not authorize Michael Lawler to make the aforementioned
representations to CHAPMAN.
84. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that the terms set forth in the
purported Irrevocable Pledge between JAMES and CHAPMAN are not a reflection of the terms
entered between the parties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN,
on numerous occasions, acknowledged the amount of the pledge by JAMES EMMI was not
irrevocably $12 million dollars, but rather it was an amount that could exceed $10 million. -14-
COMPLAINT
=
85. On or about October 15, 2014, JAMES wrote to CHAPMAN requesting a release
from the remaining $9 million left on his pledge. The letter expressed his disappointment with the
lack of progress on the Hall of Technology and Engineering, the delayed project completion date,
the increased projected cost of $130 million for the project, and the immense financial burden the
$12 million pledge was for him.
86. On November 4, 2014, Sheryl Bourgeois at CHAPMAN wrote JAMES
recommending an extended payment schedule for the remainder of the pledge amount, but still
pleading for accelerated payments.
87. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that unknown to them, on
November 5, 2014, Michael Lawler, without the EMMIS consent or authorization, wrote to
CHAPMAN thanking them for agreeing to modify JAMES’s $12 million pledge agreement so that
the $9 million balance due was “spread out over the next nine years.” In addition, the letter also
requested a modification of the payment plan on the pledge so that it would be paid at a rate of
$500,000 per year, with the unpaid balance to be paid when both the EMMIS passed away. The
EMMIS never authorized
88. On November 20, 2014, counsel for CHAPMAN sent the EMMIS a menacing letter
demanding immediate acceptance of CHAPMAN’s offer to extend the pledge payment schedule by
six years to 2022, and threatening litigation if JAMES failed to accept their offer. Further, the letter
also threatened CATHERINE directly, alleging she made derogatory and false statements about
CHAPMAN to third parties.
Michael Lawler to write this correspondence or to make such offers of
modification.
89. On or about December 9, 2014, CATHERINE retained her own counsel, Jean Gray
Platt, to respond to CHAPMAN’s November 20th
90. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that CHAPMAN and DOE
Defendants conspired to harass, intimidate, pressure, defraud and harm the EMMIS, without the
letter. Attorney Platt demanded identification of
the purported “false and derogatory comments” made by CATHERINE and reiterated JAMES’s
request to be released from the $12 million pledge agreement. Both of these requests were flatly
denied by CHAPMAN’s counsel.-15-
COMPLAINT
consent, knowledge or authorization from the Plaintiffs.


Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, single family, condo, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls,

Take 3 Film Festival at Plaza de Cultural y Artes by Mary Cummins, Maria Rivera

Take 3 Film Festival presented by East LA Film Festival , Panamanian International Film Festival/LA and La Plaza de Cultura y Artes was hel...