10 itt 2 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 Fi Chad Biggins, Esq. (State Bar No. 206922) MO Sipe LED Biggins Law Group ot Los Angelos 3701 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 410 APR 19 206 Los Angeles, CA 90010 T: 213-387-3100 F: 213-387-3101 chadbiggins@gmail.com Exsputive OticenClerk Deputy Cristina Griaida Attomeys for Plaintiff AM. P34 rele ?. Lf el SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AM, Case No, BC616766 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 1) WRONGFUL TERMINATION 2) DISCRIMINATION 3) FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE OR ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS 4) HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT vs. VALVE CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive 3) RETALIATION | 6) UNPAID WAGES (OVERTIME) Defendants 7) BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 8) MISCLASSIFICATION [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] Plaintiff A.M. (°Plaintiff), by and through her attomey, alleges and avers as follows: Ree. 1 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all timéS Be still is, a corporation with its principal location in the state of Washington, Detenfint Ba prominent company in the video game industry. It develops video games and sells games Internet. Its titles and content are translated into numerous languages and distributed all over world Case No. ‘COMPLAINT relevant, defendant VALVE CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as “Defense §4330/037 Fagua/119 s9nsT90810 W 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 poe A Baa 2. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES | through 10, inclusive, and therefore, pursuant to section 474 of the Code of C Procedure, sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are responsible in some manner for the activities alleged herein and each was acting as an agent for the others. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to add the true names of DOES 1 through 10 once they are ascertained 3. Atall times herein mentioned, California Government Code (“Code”) § 12940 et seq, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), was in full force and effect and was binding on Defendants. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS. FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION 4. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the ‘material allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs. 5. Atall times relevant, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants. Her position was primarily translating content into Spanish, as well as other duties, such as acting as a liaison with law enforcement officers of Spanish speaking countries’ governments and providing customer service. 6. Prior to 2012, Plaintiff worked as an employee in the Washington headquarters. However, in about 2012 she decided to undergo gender transition, and to do so, she needed to move to Los Angeles where her doctors were located and she could also recover from the surgical procedures while still working, Defendants accommodated her request to relocate and allowed her to work from home due to the gender transition issues, as well as related disabilities including depression and other socialization issues 7. However, as a condition of moving to Los Angeles, Defendants required that Plaintiff be classified as an "independent contractor" although she was still performing the same duties as when she was classified as an "employee." The title "independent contractor" is irrelevant as Plaintiff was absolutely an employee under the law and she was mis-classified as an Case No. 2 ‘COMPLAINTindependent contractor from 2012-2016. Every element of the control test is met. She was performing service in which the Defendants were engaged; Her work was a part of the regular business of Defendants; She maintained the same position for many years and was paid on an hourly basis (as opposed to being paid for a specific project); and most importantly the Defendants ‘maintained close control and direction over Plaintiffs work. 8. The classification as "independent contractor” was harmful to Plaintiff because she lost her employee benefits, including health benefits, and she was also not paid overtime wages for the hours she worked overtime. 9. Plaintiff continued working from home in Los Angeles. However, she began complaining to human resources about their unfair business practices of utilizing people who were interested in their products to provide translation services for free. She complained that these unpaid translators, often very young minors, were being exploited and lured to work for Defendants based on false promises made by her supervisor, Torsten Zabka. Indeed, they would work hours upon hours based on promises that their work could lead to a paid position, but in the end Torsten Zabka invariably found excuses to renege on his promises. Plaintiff felt bad for the exploited minors and complained to Human Resources about this issue, and other complaints involving Torsten Zabka creating a hostile work environment and mistreating employees. 10. * Then, within days after a written complaint about the hostile work environment, (which complaints were never addressed by human resources), on or about January 15, 2016, Plaintiff was terminated without any valid basis. The stated reason for the termination was that Plaintiffs job was being relocated to Washington. However, when Plaintiff offered to relocate back to Washington, Defendant refused. ‘The stated reason for termination was pretextual and on information and belief, there was never any actual intent to relocate the job to Washington. 11, The real reason for termination was that Plaintiff was complaining about the hostile work environment and illegal business practices as stated above. Moreover, Plaintiff was terminated due to her trans-gender status. While Defendants accommodated her at first, her direct supervisor, Torsten Zabka, referred to her in a derogatory fashion. He referred to Plaintiff as "it" - Case No. 3 ‘COMPLAINTul 12 13 14 which is highly offensive to a trans-gender person, The term "it" dehumanizes transgender persons and the usage of such a term by Torsten Zabka shows that he was biased against her and shows that her transgender status was another reison he decided to terminate her. The real reasons for termination are unlawful. 12, Asa direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer actual, consequential and incidental financial losses, including without limitation, loss of salary and benefits, all in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and any other provision of law providing for prejudgment interest. 13. Asa direct and proximate result of said wrongful acts by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, humiliation, shame, despair, embarrassment, depression, stress, anxiety, fear and mental pain and anguish, all to Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial 14. Asa direct and proximate result of said wrongful acts by Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred attomneys' fees in an amount to be determined, for which Plaintiff claims a sum to be established according to proof. 15. The above recited actions of Defendants were done with malice, fraud and/or oppression and in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Defendants’ conduct was despicable and justifies an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter them from engaging in such conduct again in the future, in an amount according to proof at time of trial. 16. On 03/30/2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State of California, Department of Fair Employment and Housing. On that same day, DEFH closed Plaintiff's case in order to allow Plaintiff to pursue her action in court and issued a Right-to-Sue letter. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS, FOR DISABILITY / GENDER IDENTITY DISCRIMINATION 17. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. Case No. 4 ‘COMPLAINT9 un 12 13 14 are Bw 18, tall times relevant, Plaintiff had a disability, to wit, depression and a-social issues including Asperger's Syndrome, Defendants knew about these disabilities and accommodated them in 2012 when they allowed Plaintiff to move to Los Angeles and work from home. (The issue with working in the office as opposed to home has to do with the socialization and interaction with people, which is extremely difficult for Plaintiff due to these disabilities and also with avoiding practical difficulties of having to work in an office with people while recovering from surgical procedures.) 19. Plaintiff was able to perform her job duties with the reasonable accommodation of working from home 20. Defendants failed to provide the reasonable accommodation based on the stated reason for termination, to wit, that Plaintiff was being fired because they required her to work in the office in Washington, When Plaintiff agreed to do this in order to save her job, despite her Aisabilities, Defendants flat out refused and said "We are not interested in moving you back to a full time position at Valve.” 21 Defendants terminated Plaintiff due to her disability / transgender status. 22. Defendants’ failure to provide a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff was a substantial factor in causing her harm. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE / ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS 23. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. 24. The interactive process required by the FEHA is an informal process with the employee to attempt to identify a reasonable accommodation that will enable the employee to perform the job effectively. 25, __Asstated above, Defendants failed and refused to accommodate Plaintiffs disabilities and failed and refused to engage in an interactive process to reasonably identify a way to accommodate. For example, if (which is not the case) Defendants truly had a valid reason to require Plaintiff to work in the office with the other employees, a reasonable accommodation Case No. 5 ‘COMPLAINT15 16 7 18 19 20 21 ‘might have been to give her a private office. But no such discussion was even engaged in because, although Plaintiff expressed a willingness to relocate back to Washington to work, Defendant flatly refused her offer and refused to discuss it further. 26. Defendants failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 27. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein, 28. Plaintiff was subject to unwanted harassment because she is transgender. 29. Further, her supervisor created a hostile work environment by sowing discord among the employees. Plaintiff reported this conduct to human resources. 30. A reasonable person in her circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. 31. A supervisor engaged in the conduct, and Plaintiff reported the conduct to human resources who failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 32. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR RETALIATION 33. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. 34. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by complaining about the hostile work environment created by her supervisor. 35. Defendants discharged her as a direct and proximate result. 36. Defendants’ failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR UNPAID WAGES (OVERTIME) 37. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein, Case No. 6 COMPLAINT10 u 12 13 14 BTR Be 38. Bight hours of labor constitutes a day's work, and any work in excess of 8 hours in 1 workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. (Labor Code § $10 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 § 3(A).) 39. During all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff worked more than 8 hours per workday, and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, in an amount to be proven at trial, but did not receive any overtime wages for overtime hours suffered or permitted to work. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that she was not exempt from overtime under any applicable exemption, and, therefore, she was and is entitled to overtime compensation, 41. Based on the misconduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, penalties, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs in an amount to be determined at trial. 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff accrued wages and other compensation due to upon termination. 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants are liable for statutory and civil waiting time penalties of up to 30 days of pay pursuant to Labor Code § 203 and other applicable laws and regulations. 44. Based on the misconduct alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks compensation for overtime and waiting time penalties and other remedies in an amount to be proven at trial SEVENTH CAUSE OF AC FOR BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200) 43. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein, NAL INST DEFENDANTS 46. Defendants, and each of them, are "persons" as defined under Business and Professions Code § 17021 47. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants Case No. 1 ‘COMPLAINT10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 BI By committed the unfair business practices, as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., by violating the laws alleged to have been violated in this Complaint and which allegations are incorporated herein by reference and include, but are not limited to the following: a. Failing to pay Plaintiff all wages due and owing including overtime wages. 48. Asaresult of the above-alleged misconduct, Plaintiff has been deprived of lawful wages to which she is entitled in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial. 49, Asa direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and conduct of said Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks attorneys’ fees as permitted by law and as provided by for § 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR MISCLASSIFICATION (LABOR CODE § 226. 50. Plaintiff incorporates all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein. 51. Plaintiffs informed and believes that Defendants willfully misclassified Plaintiff, and others, as independent contractors. 52. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of her misclassification as an independent contractor, including increased taxes and insurance. BE) Plaintiff has also been damaged because she is unable to obtain unemployment benefits and state disability benefits as a direct and proximate result of the misclassification, 54. Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.8, Plaintiff is entitled to recover penalties and other remedies as set forth therein against Defendants, PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against Defendants as follows: A. For general damages in accordance with proof, estimated at $1,000,000.00; B. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount found appropriate by the trier of fact in accordance with proof, For special damages in accordance with the proof, estimated at $1,000,000.00; D. For unpaid wages & penalties, estimated at $150,000.00; Case No. 8 ‘COMPLAINT10 ul ZO 7m m For loss of earnings according to proof, estimated at $1,000,000.00; For prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest in accordance with law; For costs of suit, including attomey’s fees pursuant to statute; and For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: PRAYER FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby prays for a jury trial on all issues and causes of action so triable. Dated: Chad Biggins Case No. 9 COMPLAINTe e cmorg EER RET ORS aon a ie csomasen Bea cr = ins 200032 3701 Wilshire Blvd. 410 Los Angeles, CA 90010 rexeerone no; 213-387-3100 raxno: 213-387-3101 Supoiot gL arromey annoy Plaintiff Ounty of Los Aafornia [SuPEnion coURT oF Gauronwa, county oF Los Angeles sstmeeraooness: |] | N. Hill St. APR 19 2016 auton Aooness crvmozncoce: Los Angeles CA 90012 Shen) A. Carr itive Officers Jeers Stanley. Mosk amen ee | Daten Lert ias at CASE NAME: Cristina Gra same AM. v Valve Corporation CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation “BC 618766 a ae (1 counter (5 voinder 9 | $99 | omanded demanded is | Filed wih frst appearance by defendant | “°° exceeds $25,000) _ $25,000 or less) (Cal, Rules of Court rule 3.402) _| err iHems 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2) 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Chil Litigation LJ Auto (22) [EJ Breach of contractivarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400~3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) CJ ruea.740 cotecions 0) [_) Antnusyrace regulation (03) Other PUPDIWD (Personal InjuryiProperty — [_] Other cotections (09) 1 construction defect (10) Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) 3) Wass tort (40) ‘Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) (5) securities tigation (28) Product ability (24) Real Property (1) EnvironmentaiToxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) (C1 Eminent comainvinverse (FA insurance coverage claims arising from the omer Puroiwo (23) canvemneton (14) \ngurance cmerage airs arcing Foe Non-PUPDIND (Other) Tort 1 Wrongtut evieton (33) pes (4) (1 usiness torvunai busines practice (07) L—} Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment [ civitcignts (08) Unlawful Detainer (1 Enforcement of judgment (20) [J betamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint J Frau (16) [1 Residentiat (32) © roe [1 intelectual property (18) CO onigs (98) (Other complaint (not speciieg above) (42) [J Professional negligence (25) dudicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition (1 otter non-PYPDAWD tor (38) KS Asset ortetre (05) Pcinersip and corporate povemance (21) Employment Peetiione; arbitration avard (11) 1 petiion (rot specifed above) Wort tention 36) wer otmancate (02 ae, [J otmer employment (15) [71 one juicial review (39) 2 Thiscase [_Jis [¥Jisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Cour. the case is complex, mark the factors requting exceptional judial manayorant 2. Large number of separately represented partes 4] Longe number of witnesses &.[ Extensive mation pracice raising cific or novel e.[_—] Coortnaion wth related actions pending in one or more cours issues tat willbe time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or counties, orn a federal court ©. Substaniat amount of documentary evidence 1. [1 Substantial postjudgment jul supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): ‘Number of causes of action (specify): 7 This case L_Jis isnot a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve @ notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015,) Date: 4/7/16 Chad Biggins J Za ETN TORE OE PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY NOTICI «:Biaintif must file this cover sheet with the frst paper fled in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed “under the Probate Code, Family Code, of Welfare and institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Cour, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may result 118 sanctions. * {Ble this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. *fthis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all, ‘other parties to the action or proceeding * Unless thsi a collections case under rule 3.740 ora complex case, this cover sheet willbe used for statistical purposes only. monetary b.[_] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [7 ]punitive "isi Cnctel Cate CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET a gS ln 35832 3a 09 270 Gatoteen day 2007)‘ORT ME OSE NER AM. v. Valve Corporation CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION BEG 16766 (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case Item I. Check the types of hearing and fil in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: JURY TRIAL?Y'ES CLASSACTION? YES LIMITED CASE? YES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL 5. lings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. HOURS/“DAYS Item Il. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps ~ If you checked “Limited Case’, skip to Item Ill, Pg. 4) Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected Step 2: Check one Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case. Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.3, Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below) }. Clase atone mate adn te Slay Mosk Course canal dtc, 8, Localonol propery a pemanenty garaged vere. 4 Gigsbeemrasien ste ue Someystogs Coumuce cocayasue’ —§ taeaton ol era perma Ne eg cal oF EOS ar ene Ender nctons wot 2 LEER ut de Saal canage occurs, Hecho rete Hieron cea y aero 11. Mandatory ing Location 0 se) Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item Ill; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration. A B C Applicable Ct case cover Sheet Type Aion Reasons ee Step 3 ager No (Beeson) ‘ore ro 2) ©. A7I00 Water Vehie-PersonaluniPropenyOomageMongtuDeah [1.2.4 as 2 | nnsueametois as) [0 A7110 Persona nunyPropery OanagetenglDeath—Unrsures Mott | 1.2.4 1 AGo7O Ashes Property Damace 2 Asbestos 08) ©. A722 Asbestos Personal Iun/engl Death 2 zs ge Product Liadity(24) |. 87260 Prodvet Listy (not asbestos o txclenstonmertal 1.2,3,4.8 BS G_A7210 Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons: 1 FS | aia naprctee 4) Ze 1. AT240 Otter Peesional Heath are Malpractice 1a ss A720 Premises Liabity (9. ip and fat a & ter Persona £3 eae 1 A7230 ierona Body ny Propety Danagetongts Dea (e oe nay Propet jon Bod 1a BE | inuyPrnen Seen oncom ee) os Death (23) D__A7270_ Intentional infction of Emotional Distress 143. i (D_A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death ee LACIV 109 (Rev 3/15) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of 4‘Soar me ease nomen AM. v. Valve Corporation A B C Applicable Civ Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Reasons See Step 3 Category No (Check ony one) ‘Aoove Business Toa(07) |] A6029 Other Commercial Business Tort ret raubreach of contact) 1.3 ee ge ivi Rights (08) © A6005 Civil Rights/Discriminaton 44.2.3. Es $3 Defamation (13) 2. AG010 Defamation (sanderfibel) 1.2.3, 2S Fras (16) 1 AGO13 Fraud (0 contact 44.2.8 B= 1D A6017 Legat Malpractice 4.2.3, & & | Professional Negligence (25) qe 12. A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical ok 142.3 other (35) 13-0025 Olver Non PersonalinuryProperty Damage tort 2.3 =| wrenata Termination (36) [A637 WrongtTeminaon 1.2.3 2 = 1D A8024 Other Employment Complaint Case 1.2.3, a) E {6108 Labor Commissioner Appens 10 AGODA Breach of RetalLeate Contract not naw detanerorwrongha— [> g tveton) Breach ofConracy Want | seong coneacarantySresch-Seer Pint ro taudnesigerce) | 25 (ot insurance) 6019: Negligent Breach of ContraclWarranty (no fraud) Seca @ 6028 Other Breach of ContractWarranty (not fraud or negligence) ual 3g 1 A6002 Colections Case-Seller Plaintift 2.5.6.1 z Colectons (08) z 1D A802 Other Promissory NoteIClectons Case 2.5.11 ° O A6034 Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt 5.6.11 Purchased on or afer Januar 1.2014 Insurance Coverage (18) | AGDI5 insurance Coverage (ot complex) 142.548 (A600 Contractual Fraud 1.2.85: Omer contactis7) |} A031 Tortous Interference 4.2,848, (2 A6027 Otner Contac Casper breachinsurenceraudineghgence) 1,2,8.8 Eminent orarvinvese e rer Domaine TC) A7GO0 Eminent DomainCondemnoton Number of parcel 2 a 2 wrengtevcnon (99) ]1a 6023 wrong Even Case 2.8 A 1 A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure ther Rest Propery(26) | A052 Quit THe {286060 Other Real Property (ot eminent domain andordtenat orecosue) | 2.6 & [P*etowaCoRTeeST TS ser21 unewaOanna Connerca ralaugrorwonguenaon ae 7 (1) & | UnowtaDetinerResiental | ago20 naw Detain Residential (ot ergs or wrong eviction) 2.6 2 pimanfuideianar [1a agoz0F Unlawid Delain Post Forecosure 2.8. S| Unlawful DetainerOrugs (38) } C A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs, 2.6 Lacy 109 (Rev 218) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of 4SHORT MIE CASE NONER AM. v. Valve Corporation A B C Appicatie Cit Case Cover Shoot Type of Acton Reasons See Step 3 Category Ne. (check ony one) ‘Above Asset Foreture(05) | AB108 Asset Foreture Case 2.6. = | Pettonre aration (11) [A615 Pettion o CompeiContim/acateAritation 2.5. é D_ABIS! Writ Administrative Mandamus 2.8, 3 vtorMandste(02) | ABI62 Wt-Mandomus on Limited Cour Case Mater 2 3 6159 Wiit- Other inited Court Case Review 2 Other Judicial Review(38) | AG1SO Other Wit Judicial Review : 2.8. = _ | AntirusvTrade Regulation (03) ] 0 A8003 Antitusi/Trade Regulation 1.2.8 3 ‘Construction Defect(10) | 0 A6007 Construction Defect, 1.2.3 3 aims involving Mass Tort eee i 1B AG006 Claims Invoving Mass Tor 1.2.8 5 8 Secures Litgation (28) | 6035. Securities Litgaton Case 1.2.8 2 = Toxic Tor 5 Ee gq) E_A6O36. Tose TorEaviormenta 4.2.3.8 E | imrance Coverage Gene asrance Coveragertrogaton (apenas on e from Complex Case (41) | A804 Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only) 142.548 DAGIAT Sater State Judgment 2.8. an 1 A6160 Abstract of Jtoment 2.6. a eee 1D A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations) 2.9. gs of Judgment (20) |) A6140_ Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2.8. Es 1 AGI14 PetiionCeniicate or Enty of tudgment on Unpaid Tax 2.8 1D A612 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case 2.8.9 RICO (27) D_A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case 14.2.8 of 28 1 At%0 Dedratn Role On hae se Ctner Complaints }_AB0AO injunctive Rott Oniy (not domestiharassment 2.8. BZ | torSpeciies Avove) 42) |r 6011 Other Commercial Compaint Case (norornon-complex) 4.2.8 me D600. Other Civil Complaint (non-tortinon-complex) 14,28, Parmership Comoraton Try agt13.Parnesh and Corporate Governance Case 2.8 ©6121. Givi Harassment 2.3.8 3 D_A6123. Workplace Harassment 2.3.9. 2 onecPettens inet | A124 ElderDependenadut Abuse Case 2.3.9. % Spectied Above)(43) | 6190 Election Contest 2. 6 1D AB110 Petiton for Change of Name 27. n 1D A6170 Petition fr Rei rom Late Claim Law 2.3.4.8 2 1D A6100 Other Cit Pion 2.8 3 LACIV 109 (Rev 3/15) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 of 4SHORT ILE SE MBER AM. v. Valve Corporation Item Ill, Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in Item II., Step 3 on Page 4, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected. ‘ORES: REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown | 4190 Arch Or. under Column C forthe type of action that you have selected for this case. D1.42.03.04.05,06.07. 08.0 9,010.011 Studio City ca 91604 tem IV. Declaration of Assignment: | declare under penalty of perury under the laws ofthe State of California thatthe foregoing is true ‘and correct and that the above-entitied matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk ‘courthouse in the Central Distict of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., § 392 et seq., and Local Rule 2.3, subd.) Dated: 4/7/16. LO (GIGRATURE OF ATTORNEVFIENGPARTY) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 4. Original Complaint or Petition. IF fing 2 Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010. Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 03/16). Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived. 6. Assigned order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-010, if the plaintiff or petitioner is @ minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue @ summons. 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other inating pleading in the case. gtazeti ro LACIV 109 (Rev 3/18) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3. LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 40f 42 > 23 4 25 26 27 28 Pai, PLEIN, SBrLIVAN® CCONNALIGHTON ur FILED Superor Con ‘Cnny Ofer ge MAY 20 2016 MICHAEL C. SULLIVAN (SBN 131817) a ‘msullivan@paulplevin.com . pie Utice Cie EVAN A. PENA (SBN 268510) . Deputy epena@paulplevin.com PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP 101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor ‘San Diego, California 92101-8285 Telephone: 619-237-5200 Facsimile: 619-615-0700 LAURENCE A. SHAPERO Ishapero@riddellwilliams.com RIDDELL WILLIAMS P.S. 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza, Suite 4500 Seattle, WA, 98154-1192 Telephone: (206) 389-1661 Facsimile: (206) 389-1708 Attomeys for VALVE CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT AM, Case No. BC616766 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION'S: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF A.M.’S v. UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT VALVE CORPORATION and DOES | Judge: Hon. Michael P. Linfield through 10, inclusive, Dept: 34 Action Filed: April 12, 2016 Defendants Trial Date: Not Set BY FAK Defendant Valve Corporation (“Defendant”) answers Plaintiff A.M.’s (“Plaintiff”) unverified Complaint as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 43 hg id Siva 2bOR8hLTSHOD *# BaT3ORU #309. Defendant denies each and every materia allegation of Plaintif's unverfiga Gegns cause of action thereof, and further denies that Plaintiff'has been damagedsin @p¥ mannego} ‘Sob amount, or at all, as a result of any act or omission by Defendant, on 3 uw z a wt : an ld DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TOFLAINTIFE A'S UNGER COMA — SEES 358/119 ‘9919190810 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAL, PLEVIN SUBLIVAN & ‘CONNAUGHTON ur ARFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For a further and separate answer to the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant submits the following affirmative defenses FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, (Consent) Plaintiff's Complaint, and cach cause of action, in whole or in par, is barred by the doctrine of consent. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Sufficient Facts) Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate Damages) Defendant is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff failed, refused, ‘or neglected to mitigate or avoid the damages complained of in her Complaint. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff is barred, in whole or in part, from recovering monetary damages from Defendant. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) PlaintifPs Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure sections 338, 340 and 343, Government Code sections 12960 and 12965, Labor Code section 203 and Business and Professions Code section 17208. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) Plaintif's Complaint, and each cause of action, is barred, in whole or in part, in that Plaintiff, by reason of her conduct and actions, is estopped from asserting the claims set forth in the Complaint. ~ 2 seesseee CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF AMS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTx 27 > aid, pLevI, SULLIVAN & CONRAUGHTON ix” SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Punitive Damages) Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action, fails to state facts sufficient to support an award of punitive damages against Defendant. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies) Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action, is barred, in whole or in part, due to Plaintiff's failure to timely exhaust her administrative remedies, as required by California Government Code sections 12960, et seq., and Labor Code section 98.7. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) By reason of Plaintiff's conduct, she is barred under the doctrine of unclean hands from all, forms of relief sought in her Complaint. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action, in whole or in part, is barred by the doctrine of waiver. ‘TENTH ARFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reasonable Care) Plaintif?s third, fourth and fifth claims are barred because the actions of the answering Defendant were reasonable in that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any behavior, and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Causation) Plaintiff's first and fifth claims are barred because the alleged adverse actions would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if Plaintiff had not allegedly engaged in a protected activity. 3 DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF A_M.’S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTPBL, pLevin SULLIVAN & CONRAUGHTON sa TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DE) (Good Faith Business Judgment) Plaintiff's first, second, third and fifth claims are barred because the alleged conduct of which Plaintiff complains, if committed, was done in good faith, in the exercise of business judgment and for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. ‘THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, (Workers’ Compensation Preemption) While Defendant believes that Plaintiff was properly classified as an independent contractor from approximately 2012 to 2016, to the extent she alleges she was an employee during that time period, her fourth and fifth claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the exclusive remedy of the California Workers’ Compensation Act set forth in California Labor Code section 3600 et seq. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reservation of Rights) Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that it may have additional, as yet unasserted defenses, to Plaintiff's Complaint or the purported causes of action contained therein, Defendant specifically reserves the right to assert additional defenses as deemed appropriate at a later time. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that: 1. Plaintiff be denied relief by way of her Complaint; 2. Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed; 3. Defendant be dismissed with its costs of suit and attomeys’ fees; and uw Ww Ww Ww wy a1 4 “DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF A.W Vi"S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT —1 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 3 || Dated: May 14, 2016 PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON tLe 4 By: a ao MICHAEL SULLIVAN 6 EVAN A. PENA ‘Attorneys for VALVE CORPORATION 2 x 27 s 28 i. rvewn Givane = 5 - COnRAUGHTON us| — DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF2B 24 25 26 2 es Ph, LEVIN SOBLIVAN ‘CONNAUGITON 1 PROOF OF SERVICE A.M. y. Valve Corporation, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC616766 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. Iam employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. My business address is 101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor, San Diego, CA.92101-8285. On May 19, 2016, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF A.M.'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action as follows: Chad Biggins Biggins Law Group 3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213-387-3100 Facsimile: 213-387-3101 Email: chadbiggins@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I placed ‘each such envelope or package for deposit with United States Postal Service, this same day, at my business address shown above, following ordinary business practices. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 19, 2016, at San Diego, California, ap