View court documents - Freedman + Taitelman, LLP

Transcription

•
C:()f»~~-------~SU~M-1~00
SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL}
FOR COURT USE DNL Y
(SOLD PARA USD DE LA CORTE)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(A V/SO AL DEMANDADO):
KRISTEN KERR, an individual; VICTOR PEKARCIK, an individual;
CLARENCE KERR, an individual; KATHLEEN O'CONNOR, an
individual; MANUEL A. MEDRANO, an individual; and DOES I
through 20, inclusive
ORIGINAL FI~O
Superior Co.Jrt of Cal 'f
.
County of l
r ornre.
os An!=Jeles
AUG 2 6 2015
•
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
CONFORMED COPY
Sbcni R. Cane E
.
~ r, xecuuve Officer/Clerk
By
~ ~~
Moses Soto
STEVEN JENSEN, an individual
-·Deputy
· NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this •:curt and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response . You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form . If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements . You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp) , or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the courT. will dismiss the case.
;AVISO/ La han demandado. Sino responde dentro de 30 dlas, Ia corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea Ia informacion a
continuaci6n
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presenter una respuesta por escrito en esta
corte y hecer que se entregue una copia a/ demandante. Una carte o una Jlamada telef6nica nolo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que ester
en formato legal correcto side sea que procesen su caso en Ia corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularios de Ia corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en Ia
biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en Ia corte qua le quede mas cerca. Sino puede pagar Ia cuote de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de Ia corte
que /e dl!i un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Sino presents su rftspueste a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y Ia corte le
podra quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que /lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Sino conoce a un abogado, pueae /lamar a un servicio de
remision a abogados. Sino puede pager a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de Jucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayude de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniemdose en contacto con Ia corte o el
colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, Ia corte tiene derecho a raclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos par imponer un gravamen sabre
cualquier recuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor rftCibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de Ia corte antes de ue Ia corte pueda desechar el caso.
e name an a ress o
e court rs:
(EI nombre y direcci6n de Ia corle es):
CASE NUMBER:
(Numero del Caso):
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
BCS 9
Los Angeles, California 90012
The name, address , and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(EI nombre, Ia direcci6n y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es) :
Michael A. Taitelman (SBN 156254); Beniamin A. Marsh (SBN 247913)
F\REEDMAN + TAITELMAN, LLP
1901 Avenue ofthe Stars, Suite 500
Los Angeles, California 90067
SHERR&R.CAAIER
Tel. (310) 201-0005 Fax (310)201-0045
M.b•
DATE:
Clerk, by -------,-----=;.-------::=-- • Deputy
(Fecha)
(Secretario)
(Adjunto)
(For proof of sefYice of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
(Para pmeba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, '(POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
!SEAL)
1.
as an individual defendant.
2.
as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
D
D
3.
D
on behalf of (specify):
under:
4.
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of California
SUM-1 00 [Rev. July 1. 2009]
0
D
D
D
D
CCP 416.10 (corporation)
CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)
other (specify):
by personal delivery on (date):
SUMMONS
D
D
D
•
CCP 416.60 (minor)
CCP 416.70 (co:mservatee)
CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
F'age1 of 1
Code o·' Civil Procedure§§ 412.20,465
•
•
2
3
4
•
5
6
Michael A. Taitelman, Esq. (SBN 156254)
Benjamin A. Marsh, Esq. (SBN 247913)
FREEDMAN+ TAITELMAN, LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-0005
Facsimile: (31 0) 201-0045
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
CONFORMED COPY
ORIGINAL FIL.ED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
AUG 2 6 :W15
•
Sherri R. CartCl, Executive OfficerfCierk
By
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Jensen
gM011esMSoto -·Deputy
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10
•
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
15
16
•
STEVEN JENSEN, an individual;
17
vs.
KRISTEN KERR, an individual; VICTOR
PEKARCIK, an individual; CLARENCE
KERR, an individual; KATHLEEN
O'CONNOR, an individual; MANUEL A.
MEDRANO, an individual; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive.
Defendants.
18
21
•
22
23
•
24
25
26
27
28
~
~
19
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
•
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:
BC 5 ~t 2 7 2 6
COMPLAINT FOR:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
1
COMPLAINT
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO
COMPUTERS, COMPUTER
SYSTEMS & COMPUTER DATA IN
VIOLATION OF CAI.IFORNIA
PENAL CODE §502(C);
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
INVASION OF PRIVACY;
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CODE §1708.8;
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS;
NEGLIGENT HIRING;
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION I
FAILURE TO WARN;
AIDING AND ABETTING
COMPUTERS, COMPUTER
SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER DATA
IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
PENAL CODE § 502(C);
AIDING AND ABETTING
AIDING AND ABETTING
AIDING AND ABETTING
CIVIL CODE §1708.8
•
)
1
)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
2
=-~~~~~~~----~----)
3
4
•
5
VICTOR PEKARCIK, CLARENCE KERR, KATHLEEN O'CONNOR, MANUEL A. MEDRANO
6
and DOES 1 through 20 as follows:
7
8
9
•
•
•
Plaintiff STEVEN JENSEN alleges causes of action against Defendants KRISTEN KERR,
INTRODUCTION
•
This is a sordid tale of computer hacking perpetrated by an actress, her father and her exlover, all with the involvement of prominent local attorneys. Plaintiff Steven Jensen ("Jensen") is a
10
successful talent manager and producer who married defendant actress Kristen Kerr ("Kerr") in 2005.
11
In 2011, Jensen joined Vincent Cirrincione Associates Ltd., a well-known Talent Management and Film
12
and Television Packing company. Just as Jensen's career was on an upward trajectory, Kerr filed for
13
divorce. Kerr wasted little time before becoming romantically involved with defendant Victor Pekarcik
14
("Pekarcik"). Unbeknownst to Jensen, Kerr and Pekarcik schemed over a more than two year period to
15
hack into Jensen's personal and business email accounts in order to learn information that Kerr would
16
use in the parties' family law proceeding. Kerr's father funded their computer hacking venture, not only
17
paying Pekarcik and providing him with an office in Beverly Hills to conduct their illicit scheme, but
18
also paying defendant attorney Manuel A. Medrano ("Medrano") to supervise Pekarcik. Jensen's
19
personal, medical, business, legal and other information was provided to Kerr's family law attorney,
20
defendant Kathleen O'Connor ("O'Connor"), who used that information to seek a tactical advantage in
21
the divorce proceedings. It was at his deposition in the family law proceedings that Jensen first
22
suspected wrongdoing. Shortly thereafter, a friend of Kerr and Jensen came clean, telling Jensen that
23
Kerr had been reading, downloading and dissem'nating his personal and business emails for more than
24
two years. Jensen confronted Kerr during a meeting with a Child Custody Evaluator for the Los
25
Angeles Superior Court. Kerr admitted to this conduct, and has since admitted undt:r oath to the scheme
26
perpetrated by defendants, as outlined in this Complaint. By this civil lawsuit, Jensen seeks redress for
27
the brazen conduct perpetrated by defendants.
28
2
COMPLAINT
•
THE PARTIES
1
2.
2
3
•
3.
4.
10
•
11
5.
Kerr") was and is an individual who resides in the County of Beaufort, South Carolina. C. Kerr is Kerr's
father.
6.
At all times mentioned herein, O'Connor was and is an individual licensed to practice
law within the State of California. On information and belief, O'Connor's principle place of business is
13
Los Angeles County, State of California. At all relevant times, O'Connor was Kerr''s family law lawyer.
7.
At all times mentioned herein, Medrano was and is an individual licensed to practice law
15
within the State of California. On information and belief, Medrano's principle place of business is Los
16
Angeles County, State of California.
17
8.
Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknow:1 to Plaintiff, who
18
therefore utilize such fictitious designations and will seek leave ofthe Court to inse11 the true names and
19
capacities of these defendants when ascertained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and
20
thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously designated defendants are responsible for the causes of
21
action set forth below in the same fashion as the identified defendants.
22
•
On information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant Clarence Kerr ("C.
12
14
•
On information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Pekarcik was and is an
individual who resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
8
9
At all times mentioned herein, Kerr was and is an individual who resides in the County o
Los Angeles, State of California.
6
7
At all times mentioned herein, Jensen was and is an individual who n:sides in the County
of Los Angeles, State of California.
4
5
•
9.
At all times material herein, each defendant was the agent, servant, joint venturer, and/or
23
employee of each and every remaining defendant, and the acts of such defendants were within the
24
course and scope of said agency, joint venture and/or employment.
25
10.
This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein because all causes of
26
action asserted herein arise out of conduct undertaken by defendants in Los Angeles County, State of
27
California. The trespass into Jensen's personal and business email was knowingly and deliberately
28
perpetrated in Los Angeles County, State of California. Each defendant has sufficknt minimum
3
COMPLAINT
•
contacts with the State of California and has otherwise intentionally availed herself of the State of
2
California so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the State of California court consistent
3
with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
4
•
11.
5
Plaintiff occurred, and is occurring, in Los Angeles County, State of California, and the liabilities to
6
which defendants are subject arise in Los Angeles County, State of California.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7
8
9
12.
Plaintiff Jensen is a successful talent manager and producer. From 1997 to 2011, Jensen
established and operated The Independent Group through which he managed numerous actors. In 2011 ,
10
Jensen joined Vincent Cirrincione Associates LTD. ("Cirrincione Associates") to assist in talent
11
management and television packaging.
12
13
14
15
16
•
Venue is proper in this Court under Code of Civil Procedure§ 395 because the injury to
13 .
Jensen married Kerr in 2005. Kerr is an actress that has appeared in various films and
television programs from 2001 to 2013.
14.
Jensen and Kerr have two children. During Jensen's marriage to Ker.-, the family resided
at a home located in Los Angeles, California.
15.
Throughout the duration of the marriage between Jensen and Kerr, Jensen maintained a
17
personal website and his own personal email account "[email protected]" that was administered by
18
Intermedia.net, Inc. ("Intermedia"). Access to the website and email account administered by
19
Intermedia was controlled by a password known only to Jensen. Jensen also maintained an iCloud
20
account that was administered by Apple Inc. Jensen also maintained a business email account
21
"[email protected]" that was administered by Cirrincione Associates. Access to Jensen's business
22
email was controlled by a password known only to Jensen. Kerr never was provided any password, and
23
Jensen never authorized Kerr to log into or access Jensen's website, personal or business email account.
24
25
26
27
28
16.
On or around September 2011, Kerr filed for legal separation from Jensen. On or about
October 1, 2011, Jensen moved out ofthe family residence in Los Angeles, California.
17.
Sometime in 2012, Kerr became romantically involved with Pekarcik On information
and belief, Pekarcik moved into Kerr's residence shortly after their relationship commenced.
18.
On information and belief, shortly after moving in with Kerr, Pekarcik offered to assist
4
COMPLAINT
•
Kerr with her divorce proceedings by utilizing his purported connections within the FBI and Los
2
3
•
•
Angeles District Attorney's Office and employing what he described as special computer skills.
19.
The divorce proceedings between Jensen and Kerr, which began in September 20 11 and
4
continued for several years, became exceedingly acrimonious. As time progressed it seemed to Jensen
5
that Kerr had developed uncanny insights into Jensen's personal and private business affairs .
6
20.
On August 11, 2014, Jensen was deposed in the family law case. The stated purpose of
7
the deposition was to inquire on topics related to the terms of a possible divorce settlement, including
8
custody of their two children. Instead, at the deposition, Jensen was peppered with questions from
9
O'Connor regarding his personal character. Jensen was forced to answer a litany of questions focusing
10
on personal and private matters including past instances of purported alcohol and drug abuse and
11
Jensen's recent Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. At the conclusion of the meeting, Jensen could not fathom
12
how Kerr and O'Connor knew of such personal, current and privileged information.
13
21.
On the night of August 11, 2014, Jensen was contacted by a mutual friend who revealed
14
shocking information about Kerr and Pekarcik- namely, that t ey had hacked into his email accounts
15
and had been reading, copying, and distributing his emails for more than two years. This mutual friend
16
provided Jensen with copies of emails sent from Kerr's email accounts ([email protected] and
17
[email protected]) to Kerr's mother Anne Kerr, C. Kerr, and O'Connor, forwarding Jensen's
18
personal and private business emails.
19
22.
On or about August 27, 2014, Jensen and Kerr met with a Child Custody Evaluator for
20
the Los Angeles Superior Court to discuss the welfare and custody of their two children. During this
21
meeting, Jensen informed the Child Custody Evaluator that he had recently discovered that Kerr and
22
Pek arcik had hacked into his email accounts and had shared Jensen's private and confidential
23
information with Kerr's family, friends and legal representatives. The Child Custody Evaluator
24
confronted Kerr and her mother Anne Kerr, who was also in attendance, with Jensen's allegations.
25
and Anne Kerr did not dispute that Jensen's email accounts had been compromised. Instead, both Kerr
26
and Anne Kerr admitted under oath that Pekarcik was hired to hack into Jensen's email accounts and
27
worked out of an office at Kerr's ho e. Kerr and Anne Kerr disclosed that Pekarcik eventually moved
28
out of Kerr's home and into an office located in Beverly Hills, California. Kerr and Anne Kerr stated
5
COMPLAINT
•
1
that C. Kerr paid the rental payments for the office in Beverly Hills, California, and paid Pekarcik a
2
salary to continue his unlawful access into Jensen's email accounts.
23 .
3
•
4
supervise Pekarcik's unauthorized access into Jensen's email accounts and to share i.nformation
5
regarding Jensen with C. Kerr.
24.
6
•
that she had been given by Kerr. While charging the iPhone, Jensen discovered approximately 6,000
8
contacts on the phone, most of whom were Jensen's clients and business contacts. On information and
9
belief, the contacts on his daughter's iPhone (Kerr's old phone) resulted from defendants' unauthorized
10
access to and trespass into Jensen's personal and business emails. It appeared to Jensen that these
11
contacts derived from Cirrincione Associates' internal software, as there was detaik:d client information
12
such as client names, tax identification numbers, Social Security numbers, payment information and
13
home addresses.
25.
Jensen later learned that Kerr had impermissibly taken possession of a proprietary
15
address book that Jensen and Cirrincione Associates shared, which Kerr accomplished by trespassing
16
and gaining unauthorized access into Jensen's and Cirrincione's computer, computer data, computer
17
system, and computer network. The proprietary address book that Jensen and Cirrincione Associates
18
shared contained detailed private client information such as personal passwords anc credit card
19
information. Jensen also learned that Kerr was in possession of emails and documents containing
20
detailed information addressing their clients' compensation, fees, deals, and compensation quotes (i.e.
21
the amounts they were paid for past work).
22
•
On or around December 11,2014, Jensen's daughter brought home an old Apple iPhone
7
14
•
On information and belief, C. Kerr retained Medrano, a criminal law attorney, to
26.
Kerr's intrusions into Jensen's business and personal emails caused Jensen to lose several
23
clients, as well as a substantial film project. Jensen has sustained substantial and irreparable harm to his
24
businesses, reputation and personal life due to defendants' possession of proprietary and confidential
25
information that was obtained as result of defendants' unauthorized accesses into, and use of, Jensen's
26
email accounts .
27
Ill
28
Ill
•
6
COMPLAINT
•
•
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(BY JENSEN FOR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS
3
AND COMPUTER DATA IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE§ 502(c)
4
AGAINST KERR, PEKARCIK, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
5
6
7
8
27.
Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
28.
Defendants Kerr and Pekarcik, and each of them, willfully violated the provisions of
Penal Code Section 502(c) by doing the following acts:
a. Knowingly accessing and without permission altering, damaging, deleting, destroying,
9
•
•
1
10
and otherwise using Jensen's data, computer, computer system, and computer network in
11
order to (1) devise and execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, deceive, and extort, and
12
(2) wrongfully control and obtain money, property and data.
13
b. Knowingly accessing and without permission taking, copying, and making use of data
14
from Jensen's computers, computer systems, and computer networks existing and
15
residing internal and external to the computer, computer system, and
16
owned by Jensen.
~omputer
network
c. Knowingly and without pennission using and causing to be used computer services,
17
18
namely Jensen's personal email account at [email protected], and Jensen's business
19
email account at [email protected] that was maintained by Cirrincione Associates.
20
d. Knowingly accessing and without permission using, altering, damaging, deleting, and
21
destroying data and computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to
22
Jensen's respective computer, computer system, and computer network.
23
e. Knowingly and without pennission providing and assisting in providing a means of
24
accessing Jensen's computer, computer system, and computer network, and email
25
accounts.
26
f.
27
28
Knowingly and without pennission accessing and causing to be accessed Jensen's
computer, computer system, and computer network and respective email accounts.
29.
As a proximate result of Kerr's and Pekarcik's acts in violation of Penal Code Section
7
COMPLAINT
•
502(c), Jensen has suffered damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits ofthis
2
3
•
5
damages.
31.
In violation Penal Code Section 502(c), Kerr and Pekarcik became liable to Jensen for his
attorneys' fees and costs.
8
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
9
(BY JENSEN FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST
10
ALL DEFENDANTS)
11
12
13
32.
33.
Defendants' tampering, interference, damage and unauthorized access to Jensen's
14
computer, computer system, computer network, and computer data, and, subsequent dissemination and
15
use of Jensen's confidential personal and business information, was outrageous conduct in which
16
Defendants abused their relation to Jensen or their position of power to damage Jensen's interests, and
17
this conduct exceeded all bounds of common decency usually tolerated by a civilized society.
18
34.
Defendants' conduct either intended to cause Jensen emotional distress, or it was
19
substantially certain that such an injury would result, and the conduct was a substantial factor in causing
20
Jensen to suffer emotional distress. To the extent that this outrageous conduct was perpetrated by
21
certain Defendants, the remaining Defendants adopted and ratified said conduct with a wanton and
22
reckless disregard of the deleterious consequences to Jensen.
23
•
In doing the acts herein alleged, Kerr and Pekarcik acted with oppression, fraud, malice,
and in conscious disregard of Jensen's rights, and Jensen is therefore entitled to punitive and exemplary
7
•
30.
4
6
•
Court, according to proof at trial.
35.
As a proximate result of Defendants' malicious acts, Jensen suffered emotional distress
24
that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure. Jensen suffered fright,
25
shock, nervousness, anxiety, worry, grief, humiliation, embarrassment, indignity, apprehension, fear,
26
and emotional and physical injuries, as well as economic losses, as a result ofDefendants' actions.
27
Jensen was forced to suffer the fear and paranoia associated with having personal details of his private
28
life exposed. Defendants, and each of them, deliberately employed tactics with the intent to cause
8
COMPLAINT
•
Jensen severe emotional distress, and succeeded in their efforts, causing damages to Jensen in an amoun
2
3
•
Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively
with the wrongful intention of injuring Jensen, from an improper and evil motive an10unting to malice
5
and in conscious disregard of Jensen's rights, entitling Jensen to recover punitive damages in amounts to
6
be proven at trial.
•
7
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
8
(BY JENSEN FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST ALL
9
DEFENDANT~
11
12
13
14
37.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation set
forth in Paragrap s 1 through 26 of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein .
38.
All Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known that the
conduct described herein would and did proximately result in physical and emotional distress to Jensen.
39.
At all relevant times, all Defendants, and each of them, had the power, ability, authority,
15
and duty to stop engaging in the conduct described herein and/or to intervene to prevent or prohibit said
16
conduct.
17
•
36.
4
10
•
in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, according to proof at trial.
40.
Despite said knowledge, power, and duty, Defendants negligently failed to act so as to
18
stop engaging in the conduct described herein and/or to prevent or prohibit such conduct or otherwise
19
protect Jensen. To the extent that said negligent conduct was perpetrated by certain Defendants, the
20
remaining Defendants confirmed and ratified said conduct with the knowledge that Jensen's emotional
21
and physical distress would thereby increase, and with a wanton and reckless disregard for the
22
deleterious consequences to Jensen.
23
41.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Jensen has suffered
24
and continues to suffer serious emotional distress, humiliation, anguish, emotional and physical injuries,
25
as well as economic losses, all to his damage in amounts to be proven at trial.
26
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
27
(BY JENSEN FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
28
42.
9
COMPLAINT
•
2
•
43.
3
other things, (a) hacking into Jensen's personal and business emails in order to secure information about
4
Jensen for use in the family law proceedings between Jensen and Kerr; (b) disseminating and using
5
information about Jensen for use in the family law proceedings between Jensen and Kerr; and (c)
6
intruding upon the seclusion and private affairs of Jensen in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable
7
person.
8
9
•
44.
10
computer system, and computer network would be exploited and that the contents of Jensen's personal
11
and business emails would be published, distributed, and otherwise disseminated by Kerr and Pekarcik
12
to various third parties, including defendants C. Kerr, O'Connor, Medrano, and friends and family of
13
Kerr.
15
45 .
17
46.
The dissemination and use of Jensen's confidential and private emails was offensive and
objectionable to Jensen and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
47 .
18
19
The facts disclosed about Jensen were private facts that Jensen, desired at all times to
keep private.
16
As a direct a~d proximate result of said wrongful conduct by Defendants, and each of
them, Jensen has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
48.
20
•
Defendants knew, or should have known, that Jensen had a reasonable expectation of
privacy and that the trespass into Jensen's private email communications, computer data, computer,
14
•
As alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, invaded Jensen's privacy by, among
Jensen is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that in performing the acts herein
21
alleged, Defendants, and each of them, acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, or .:1ltematively, that
22
Defendants, and each of them, acted in such conscious disregard of Jensen's right to privacy that, as a
23
direct and proximate result of Defendants' collective and individual acts, Jensen is entitled to punitive
24
damages to punish Defendants, and each of them, and to deter such conduct in the future, in an amount
25
to be determined at trial.
26
Ill
27
Ill
28
Ill
•
10
COMPLAINT
•
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(BY JENSEN FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1708.8 AGAINST ALL
3
DEFENDANTS)
49.
4
•
5
50.
The above-described conduct of Defendants, and each of them, constitutes a violation of
7
California Civil Code § 1708.8 (Physical or Constructive Invasion of Privacy). Defendants are liable for
8
constructive invasion of privacy because by trespassing into Jensen's private email communications,
9
computer data, computer, computer system, and computer network (or by facilitating such activity), they
10
have attempted to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, personal and confidential
11
electronic information belonging to Jensen, to which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. In the
12
absence of Defendants' unauthorized access into Jensen's computer systems and computer data,
13
Defendants would not have been able to acquire Jensen's private personal and business emails.
14
•
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint as though se forth fully herein.
6
•
•
1
51.
As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful conduct in violation of California Civil
15
Code§ 1708.8 by Defendants, and each of them, Jensen has suffered damages in an amount to be proven
16
attrial.
17
52.
As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful conduct in violation of California Civil
18
Code§ 1708.8 by Defendants, and each of them, are liable for three (3) times the amount of Jensen's
19
general and special damages.
20
53.
Defendants, and each of them, who directed, solicited, actually induced, or actually
21
caused any of the other Defendants to violate California Civil Code §l708.8(e) are liable for the general,
22
special and consequential damages suffered by Jensen for each said violation pursuant to California
23
Civil Code§ 1708.8 (a) and (b).
24
54.
Jensen is informed and believes, that thereupon alleges, that in performing the acts herein
25
alleged, Defendants, and each of them, acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, or alternatively, that
26
Defendants, and each of them, acted in such conscious disregard of Jensen's right to privacy that, as a
27
direct and proximate result of Defendants' collective and individual acts, Jensen is e:1titled to punitive
28
damages pursuant to California Civil Code §1708.8 (d)-( e) and 3294 to punish Defendants, and each of
11
COMPLAINT
•
them, and to deter such conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined at trial. To the extent that
•
2
Defendants, and each of them, directed, solicited, actually induced, or actually caused any of the other
3
Defendants to commit a constructive invasion of privacy, they are liable to Jensen for punitive damages
4
to the same extent that an employer, under those circumstances, would be subject to punitive damages
5
pursuant to California Civil Code §3294(b) .
6
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
(BY JENSEN FOR TRESPASS TO CHATTELS AGAINST KERR, PEKARCIK, AND DOES 1
8
THROUGH20)
9
10
11
55.
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Complaint as though set forth fully ,herein.
56.
Jensen possessed years of computer data in the form of personal and private emails,
12
including private communications with his attorneys, emails pertaining to his business dealings, and
13
numerous document files pertaining to his business dealings, including internal software containing a
14
proprietary address book holding private client information, such as personal passwords and credit card
15
information, as well as document files identifying clients' compensation, fees, deals, and compensation
16
quotes (i.e. the amounts they were paid for past work).
17
57.
Kerr and Pekarcik, and each of them, intentionally and without authorization interfered
18
with Jensen's possessory interest in this computer data when Kerr and Pekarcik intetmeddled with
19
Jensen's personal and private email communications, computer data, computer, computer system, and
20
computer network, by gaining unauthorized access into Jensen's computer systems.
21
58.
Jensen did not consent to the trespass of his data, and he was harmed by the trespass,
22
which Kerr's and Pekarcik's conducts was a substantial factor in causing. Jensen's damages include the
23
emotional distress caused by Kerr's and Pekarcik's conduct in addition to the delay in reaching a
24
settlement agreement in the fam"ly law matter, and losing several clients and a substantial film project.
25
26
27
28
59.
As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful conduct by Kerr and Pekarcik, and each
of them, Jensen has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
60.
alleged, Defendants, and each of them, acted with oppression, fraud, and malice. As a direct and
12
COMPLAINT
•
•
1
proximate result of Kerr's and Pekarcik's collective and individual acts, Jensen is entitled to punitive
2
damages to punish Defendants, and each of them, and to deter such conduct in the future, in an amount
3
to be determined at trial.
4
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5
(BY JENSEN FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST C. KERR AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
61.
6
7
forth in Paragraphs l through 26 of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein
62.
8
9
•
•
C. Kerr had a duty not to hire and/or retain Pekarcik, and other employees, agents,
volunteers, and other representatives, given Pekarcik's exploitive and intrusive behaviors and ability to
10
gain unauthorized access to Jensen's private email communications, computer data, computer, computer
11
system, and computer network.
63.
12
C. Kerr, by and through his family members, agents, servants and employees, knew or
13
reasonably should have known of Pekarcik' s exploitive and intrusive behaviors and/or that Pekarcik was
14
an unfit agent to perform the work for which he was hired. Despite such knowledge, C. Kerr negligent!
15
hired and/or retained Pekarcik in the position of trust and authority as an investigator, computer
16
specialist and/or other authority figure, where he was able to commit the wrongful acts against Jensen.
17
C. Kerr failed to use reasonable care in investigating Pekarcik and failed to provide adequate warning to
18
Jensen ofPekarcik's exploitive and intrusive behaviors and apparent ability to gain unauthorized access
19
to Jensen's private email communications, computer data, computer, computer system, and computer
20
network. C. Kerr further failed to take reasonable measures to prevent Pekarcik's unauthorized access
21
to Jensen's private email communications, computer data, computer, computer system, and computer
22
network.
64.
23
•
As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful conduct by Defendants, and each of
24
them, Jensen has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including without limitation,
25
serious emotional distress, humiliation, anguish, emotional and physical injuries, as well as economic
26
losses, including the loss of several clients and a substantial film project.
27
Ill
28
Ill
13
COMPLAINT
•
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(BY JENSEN FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISIONIFAlLURE TO WARN
3
AGAINST C. KERR, MEDRANO AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
4
•
5
65.
•
•
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and. every allegation set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 26 ofthis Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
66.
6
•
•
1
C. Kerr, by and through his agents, servants and employees knew or reasonably should
7
have known ofPekarcik's exploitive and intrusive behaviors and apparent ability to gain unauthorized
8
access to Jensen's private email communications, computer data, computer, computer system, and
9
computer network. Medrano was expressly tasked with the responsibility of supervising Pekarcik's
10
unauthorized access into Jensen's email accounts and to share information regarding Jensen with C.
11
Kerr .
12
67.
Jensen alleges on information and belief that when Pekarcik was engaging in the
13
wrongful conduct alleged herein, Pekarcik and C. Kerr and Medrano were acting as agents of each other.
14
Each Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other Defendants were engaging in the
15
wrongful conduct alleged herein, and that this conduct would directly and proximately result in injury to
16
Jensen. Each Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other Defendants were
17
trespassing upon Plaintiffs computer, computer system, and computer network and respective email
18
accounts in violation of the aegal prohibitions against this conduct as described herein.
19
68.
Each Defendant had the authority to supervise, prohibit, control, and/or regulate the other
20
so as to prevent these acts and omissions from occurring. Defendants failed to provide reasonable
21
supervision of Pekarcik, failed to use reasonable care in investigating Pekarcik, and failed to provide
22
adequate warning to Jensen of the unauthorized access to Jensen's private email communications,
23
computer data, computer, computer system, and computer network. Defendants further failed to take
24
reasonable measures to prevent Pekarcik's unauthorized access to Jensen's private email
25
communications, computer data, computer, computer system, and computer network.
26
69.
Each Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that unless they intervened to
27
protect Jensen and properly supervise, prohibit, control, and/or regulate the conduct of the other
28
Defendants, those Defendants would perceive their acts and omissions as being ratified and condoned.
14
COMPLAINT
•
70.
1
•
2
regulate the remaining Defendants and/or by failing to protect Jensen's private email communications,
3
computer data, computer, computer system, and computer network. As a direct and proximate result of
4
Defendants' acts and omissions, Jensen has suffered and continues to suffer injuries entitling them to
5
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
6
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7
(BY JENSEN FOR AIDING AND ABETTING UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS,
8
COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER DATA IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL
9
CODE § 502(C) AGAINST C. KERR, MEDRANO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
71.
10
11
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference each and every allegation sef
72.
12
•
Each Defendant failed to exercise due care by failing to supervise, prohibit, control, or
Jensen is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that C. Kerr, Medrano and Does
13
1-20 knew that Kerr and Pekarcik were accessing Jensen's private email communications, computer
14
data, computer, computer system, and computer network without authorization from Jensen. Defendant
15
C. Kerr, Medrano and Does 1-20 knowingly provided substantial assistance and encouragement to Kerr
16
and Pekarcik in relation to the unauthorized and unlawful access to Jensen's email accounts, computer,
17
computer system, computer data and computer network, thereby aiding and abetting Kerr and Pekarcik
18
in committing Unauthorized Access to Computer Systems and Computer Data in violation of Penal
19
Code Section 502(c).
73.
20
21
74.
22
Jensen is infonned and believes, and thereupon alleges, that in performing the acts herein
23
24
proximate result of Defendants' collective and individual acts, Jensen is entitled to punitive damages to
25
punish Defendants, and each of them, and to deter such conduct in the future, in an amount to be
26
determined at trial.
27
Ill
28
Ill
15
COMPLArNT
•
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(BY JENSEN FOR AIDING AND ABETTING TRESPASS TO CHATTELS AGAINST C.
3
KERR, MEDRANO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
4
•
5
6
•
76.
Jensen is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that C. Ken, Medrano and Does
1-20 knew that Kerr and Pekarcik were interfering with Jensen's possessory interest in Jensen's private
8
email communications, computer data, computer, computer system, and computer network. Defendants
9
C. Kerr, Medrano and Does 1-20 knowingly provided substantial assistance and encouragement to Kerr
10
and Pekarcik in relation to the trespass into Jensen's email accounts, computer, computer system,
11
computer data and computer network, thereby aiding and abetting Kerr and Pekarcik in committing
12
Trespass to Chattels.
14
15
77.
78.
16
17
18
19
•
20
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21
(BY JENSEN AIDING AND ABETTING INVASION OF PRIVACY AGAINST C. KERR,
22
MEDRANO, O'CONNOR, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
23
•
75.
7
13
•
•
24
25
79.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates he ein by this reference each and every allegation set
80.
Jensen is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that C. Ken, Medrano,
26
O'Connor and Does 1-20 knew that Kerr and Pekarcik were (a) hacking into Jensen's personal and
27
business emails in order to secure information about Jensen for use in the family law proceedings
28
between Jensen and Kerr; (b) disseminating and using information about Jensen for use in the family
16
COMPLAINT
•
law proceedings between Jensen and Kerr; and (c) intruding upon the seclusion and private affairs of
•
2
Jensen in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. Defendants Kerr, Mednmo, O'Connor and
3
Does 1-20 knowingly provided substantial assistance and encouragement to Kerr and Pekarcik in
4
relation to the invasions into Jensen's private email communications, computer data, computer,
5
computer system, and computer network, thereby aiding and abetting Kerr and Pekarcik in committing
6
Invasion of Privacy.
7
8
9
•
81.
As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful conduct by Defend,mts, and each of
82.
lO
11
12
13
•
14
TWELFI'H CAUSE OF ACTION
15
(BY JENSEN AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1708.8
16
AGAINST C. KERR, MEDRANO, O'CONNOR, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
17
18
19
83.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herei by this reference each and every allegation set
84.
Jensen is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that C. Kerr, Medrano,
20
O'Connor and Does 1-20 knew that Kerr and Pekarcik were (a) hacking into Jensen's personal and
21
business emails in order to secure information about Jensen for use in the family law proceedings
22
between Jensen and Kerr; (b) disseminating and using information about Jensen for use in the family
23
law proceedings between Jensen and Kerr; and (c) intruding upon the seclusion and private affairs of
24
Jensen in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. Defendants Kerr, Medrano, O'Connor and
25
Does 1-20 knowingly provided substantial assistance and encouragement to Kerr and Pekarcik in
26
relation to the invasions into Jensen's private
27
computer system, and computer network, thereby aiding and abetting Kerr and Pekarcik in committing
28
Violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8 (Physical or Constructive Invasion of Privacy).
e~ail
communications, computer data, computer,
17
COMPLAINT
•
85 .
2
3
•
86.
4
5
proximate result ofDefendants' collective and individual acts, Jensen is entitled to punitive damages to
6
7
determined at trial .
9
10
•
Wherefore, Jensen and Cirrincione Associates pray for judgment against Defendants, and each o
them, as follows.
11
ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12
13
AND COMPUTER DATA IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 502(C)
14
15
1.
For compensatory damages and other special and general damages according to proof;
16
2.
For mental and emotional distress, including pain and suffering;
17
3.
For punitive and exemplary damages;
18
4.
For an award of reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees, and costs incurred in this action;
19
5.
For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate of interest;
20
6.
For equitable relief, including an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all wrongful
21
22
conduct; and
7.
For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
23
ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24
(BY JENSEN FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST
25
ALL DEFENDANTS)
26
1.
27
2.
28
3.
18
COMPLAINT
•
4.
2
herein alleged; and
3
•
For equitable relief, including an i9-junction requiring Defendants to cease the conduct
5.
4
ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
5
(BY JENSEN FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST ALL
6
DEFENDANTS)
7
1.
8
2.
9
3.
10
4.
For equitable relief, including an injunction requiring Defendants to cease the conduct
11
herein alleged; and
12
5.
ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
(BY JENSEN FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY AGAINST ALL
14
15
16
1.
DEFE~DANTS)
For compensatory damages and other special and general damages and consequential
damages, and restitution, according to proof;
17
2.
3.
19
4.
For treble damages of the amount of actual damages sustained by Jensen according to
21
5.
22
6.
18
23
1
herein alieged; and
7.
24
25
Ill
26
Ill
27
Ill
28
Ill
•
•
19
COMPLAINT
•
ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(BY JENSEN FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1708.8 AGAINST ALL
3
DEFENDANTS)
1.
4
•
•
For an award of three (3) times the compensatory, general, special, and consequential
5
damages against Defendants, and each of them, pursuant to California Civil Code§ 1708.8 in an amount
6
to be proven at trial;
7
2.
For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate of interest;
8
3.
For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to California Civil Code§
9
1708.8(h) prohibiting and enjoining each ofthe Defendants from further violations of California Civil
10
Code§ 1708.8(a)-(b) including any further disclosure, dissemination, or exploitation of the contents of
11
Jensen's personal and business emails, his computer, comp ter system, computer network, and compute
12
data;
13
14
•
•
1
4.
For exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants, and each of them, in an amount
to be determined at trial sufficient to punish and set an example of Defendants.
15
ON THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
(BY JENSEN FOR TRESPASS TO CHATTELS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
17
1.
18
damages, according to proof;
19
2.
20
3.
21
4.
22
5.
23
24
herein alleged; and
6.
25
ON THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26
(BY JENSEN FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AGAINST C. KERR AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
27
28
1.
20
COMPLAINT
•
•
2.
2
3.
3
4.
4
ON THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5
(BY JENSEN FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION/FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST C. KERR,
6
MEDRANO AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
7
8
•
•
9
2.
10
3.
For an award of reasonable attorney's fees , witness fees, and costs incurred in this action;
11
4.
12
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
(BY JENSEN FOR AIDING AND ABETTING UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS,
14
COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER DATA IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL
15
CODE § 502(C) AGAINST C. KERR, MEDRANO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
16
•
1.
17
1.
18
For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof;
19
20
21
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
(BY JENSEN FOR AIDING AND ABETTING TRESPASS TO CHATTELS AGAINST
23
C. KERR, MEDRANO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
24
25
l.
26
2.
27
3.
For an award off reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees, and costs incurred in this action;
28
4.
•
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(BY JENSEN AIDING AND ABETTING INVASION OF PRIVACY AGAINST C. KERR,
3
MEDRANO, O'CONNOR, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
4
•
•
5
1.
6
2.
7
3.
8
4.
9
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10
(BY JENSEN AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1708.8
11
AGAINST C. KERR, MEDRANO, O'CONNOR, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
12
13
•
1.
14
2.
15
3.
16
4.
17
18
Dated: August 26,2015
. •
!)/---:
2
19
20
21
•
22
23
•
•
1
By:
Michael A. Taitelman
Benjamin A. Marsh
24
25
26
27
•
•
28
22
COMPLAINT
•
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable in this action.
•
•
2
3
4
•
5
6
Michael A. Taitelman, Esq. (SBN 156254)
Benjamin A. Marsh, Esq. (SBN 247913)
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-0005
Facsimile: (31 0) 201-0045
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
CONFORMED COPY
ORIGINAL FIL.ED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
AUG 2 6 :W15
•
Sherri R. CartCl, Executive OfficerfCierk
By
gM011esMSoto -·Deputy
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10
•
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
15
16
•
STEVEN JENSEN, an individual;
17
vs.
KRISTEN KERR, an individual; VICTOR
PEKARCIK, an individual; CLARENCE
KERR, an individual; KATHLEEN
O'CONNOR, an individual; MANUEL A.
MEDRANO, an individual; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive.
Defendants.
18
21
•
22
23
•
24
25
26
27
28
~
~
19
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
•
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:
BC 5 ~t 2 7 2 6
COMPLAINT FOR:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
1
COMPLAINT
COMPUTERS, COMPUTER
SYSTEMS & COMPUTER DATA IN
VIOLATION OF CAI.IFORNIA
PENAL CODE §502(C);
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
CIVIL CODE §1708.8;
NEGLIGENT HIRING;
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION I
FAILURE TO WARN;
AIDING AND ABETTING
COMPUTERS, COMPUTER
SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER DATA
IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
PENAL CODE § 502(C);
AIDING AND ABETTING
AIDING AND ABETTING
AIDING AND ABETTING
CIVIL CODE §1708.8
•
contacts with the State of California and has otherwise intentionally availed herself of the State of
2
California so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the State of California court consistent
3
with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
4
•
11.
5
Plaintiff occurred, and is occurring, in Los Angeles County, State of California, and the liabilities to
6
which defendants are subject arise in Los Angeles County, State of California.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7
8
9
12.
Plaintiff Jensen is a successful talent manager and producer. From 1997 to 2011, Jensen
established and operated The Independent Group through which he managed numerous actors. In 2011 ,
10
Jensen joined Vincent Cirrincione Associates LTD. ("Cirrincione Associates") to assist in talent
11
management and television packaging.
12
13
14
15
16
•
Venue is proper in this Court under Code of Civil Procedure§ 395 because the injury to
13 .
Jensen married Kerr in 2005. Kerr is an actress that has appeared in various films and
television programs from 2001 to 2013.
14.
Jensen and Kerr have two children. During Jensen's marriage to Ker.-, the family resided
at a home located in Los Angeles, California.
15.
Throughout the duration of the marriage between Jensen and Kerr, Jensen maintained a
17
personal website and his own personal email account "[email protected]" that was administered by
18
Intermedia.net, Inc. ("Intermedia"). Access to the website and email account administered by
19
Intermedia was controlled by a password known only to Jensen. Jensen also maintained an iCloud
20
account that was administered by Apple Inc. Jensen also maintained a business email account
21
"[email protected]" that was administered by Cirrincione Associates. Access to Jensen's business
22
email was controlled by a password known only to Jensen. Kerr never was provided any password, and
23
Jensen never authorized Kerr to log into or access Jensen's website, personal or business email account.
24
25
26
27
28
16.
On or around September 2011, Kerr filed for legal separation from Jensen. On or about
October 1, 2011, Jensen moved out ofthe family residence in Los Angeles, California.
17.
Sometime in 2012, Kerr became romantically involved with Pekarcik On information
and belief, Pekarcik moved into Kerr's residence shortly after their relationship commenced.
18.
On information and belief, shortly after moving in with Kerr, Pekarcik offered to assist
4
COMPLAINT
•
Kerr with her divorce proceedings by utilizing his purported connections within the FBI and Los
2
3
•
•
Angeles District Attorney's Office and employing what he described as special computer skills.
19.
The divorce proceedings between Jensen and Kerr, which began in September 20 11 and
4
continued for several years, became exceedingly acrimonious. As time progressed it seemed to Jensen
5
that Kerr had developed uncanny insights into Jensen's personal and private business affairs .
6
20.
On August 11, 2014, Jensen was deposed in the family law case. The stated purpose of
7
the deposition was to inquire on topics related to the terms of a possible divorce settlement, including
8
custody of their two children. Instead, at the deposition, Jensen was peppered with questions from
9
O'Connor regarding his personal character. Jensen was forced to answer a litany of questions focusing
10
on personal and private matters including past instances of purported alcohol and drug abuse and
11
Jensen's recent Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. At the conclusion of the meeting, Jensen could not fathom
12
how Kerr and O'Connor knew of such personal, current and privileged information.
13
21.
On the night of August 11, 2014, Jensen was contacted by a mutual friend who revealed
14
shocking information about Kerr and Pekarcik- namely, that t ey had hacked into his email accounts
15
and had been reading, copying, and distributing his emails for more than two years. This mutual friend
16
provided Jensen with copies of emails sent from Kerr's email accounts ([email protected] and
17
[email protected]) to Kerr's mother Anne Kerr, C. Kerr, and O'Connor, forwarding Jensen's
18
personal and private business emails.
19
22.
On or about August 27, 2014, Jensen and Kerr met with a Child Custody Evaluator for
20
the Los Angeles Superior Court to discuss the welfare and custody of their two children. During this
21
meeting, Jensen informed the Child Custody Evaluator that he had recently discovered that Kerr and
22
Pek arcik had hacked into his email accounts and had shared Jensen's private and confidential
23
information with Kerr's family, friends and legal representatives. The Child Custody Evaluator
24
confronted Kerr and her mother Anne Kerr, who was also in attendance, with Jensen's allegations.
25
and Anne Kerr did not dispute that Jensen's email accounts had been compromised. Instead, both Kerr
26
and Anne Kerr admitted under oath that Pekarcik was hired to hack into Jensen's email accounts and
27
worked out of an office at Kerr's ho e. Kerr and Anne Kerr disclosed that Pekarcik eventually moved
28
out of Kerr's home and into an office located in Beverly Hills, California. Kerr and Anne Kerr stated
5
COMPLAINT
•
•
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2
3
AND COMPUTER DATA IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE§ 502(c)
4
5
6
7
8
27.
28.
Defendants Kerr and Pekarcik, and each of them, willfully violated the provisions of
Penal Code Section 502(c) by doing the following acts:
a. Knowingly accessing and without permission altering, damaging, deleting, destroying,
9
•
•
1
10
and otherwise using Jensen's data, computer, computer system, and computer network in
11
order to (1) devise and execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, deceive, and extort, and
12
(2) wrongfully control and obtain money, property and data.
13
b. Knowingly accessing and without permission taking, copying, and making use of data
14
from Jensen's computers, computer systems, and computer networks existing and
15
residing internal and external to the computer, computer system, and
16
owned by Jensen.
~omputer
network
c. Knowingly and without pennission using and causing to be used computer services,
17
18
namely Jensen's personal email account at [email protected], and Jensen's business
19
email account at [email protected] that was maintained by Cirrincione Associates.
20
d. Knowingly accessing and without permission using, altering, damaging, deleting, and
21
destroying data and computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to
22
Jensen's respective computer, computer system, and computer network.
23
e. Knowingly and without pennission providing and assisting in providing a means of
24
accessing Jensen's computer, computer system, and computer network, and email
25
accounts.
26
f.
27
28
Knowingly and without pennission accessing and causing to be accessed Jensen's
computer, computer system, and computer network and respective email accounts.
29.
As a proximate result of Kerr's and Pekarcik's acts in violation of Penal Code Section
7
COMPLAINT

View court documents - Freedman + Taitelman, LLP

Transcription

Similar documents

press release

1968 Jensen Interceptor FF Registration no. 76 D Chassis no. 119/030

L-Tron Washer/Extractor

Like a Breath of Fresh Air

Winter 2014 Newsletter - Fresno Police Department Credit Union

Newsletter - Jensen Communities

Jensen

Jensen`s body, perfect