kung v. chow complaint.pdf

Case 2:14-cv-06857-SJO-E Document 1 Filed 09/03/14 of 55 Page ID #:6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff TERRY KUNG brings this civil action, pursuant to the Computer

Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§1030 et seq., as well as pursuant to the Electronic

Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510 et seq., alleging as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1338i.. This Court also has

supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that do not arise under a federal

statute. These supplemental claims are so related to the claims in the action within

the original jurisdiction of this court that they form part of the same case or

controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 inasmuch as

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims for relief alleged

herein occurred in this Judicial District

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Terry Kung was a resident of the State of California, but is now

a resident of the State of New York.

4. Defendant Wyndham W. Chow (“Defendant” or “Chow”) is a resident

of the State of California.

5. Defendant Mellowtek, Inc. is a California domestic corporation, with its

principal place of business in Los Angeles County. Defendant Chow is the sole and

principal shareholder of Mellowtek, Inc. Plaintiff is therefore informed and believes,

and thereon alleges that Mellowtek, Inc. “Mellowtek” is wholly owned, operated and

controlled by Defendant Chow.

6. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOES

1-100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, presently are

unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues such Defendants by such

fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to set forth the true names and

capacities of DOES 1-100, inclusive, when they have been ascertained, or at the time


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 COMPLAINT

of trail herein. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of such

fictitiously named Defendants participated in some manner in the actions, events and

circumstances complained of herein, and/or proximately caused the damages

complained of herein.

7. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times

herein mentioned, each of the Defendants, including inter alia, any fictitiously named

Defendants, was the agent, servant or employee of each of the other Defendants, and

in so doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the scope of his, her or

its actual apparent or ostensible authority as such agent, servant or employee, and

with the permission and consent of each co-Defendants.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

8. Plaintiff Kung was married to Defendant Chow from August 8, 2008

until the parties separated on or about January 10, 2014.

9. On or about January 13, 2014, Defendant Chow filed a Petition for

Dissolution of Marriage in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of

Los Angeles, in the Northeast District, bearing Case No. GD053920. A true and

correct copy of Defendant Chow’s Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is attached

hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “1.”

10. Plaintiff Kung filed her response to Defendant Chow’s Petition for

Dissolution on or about March 26, 2014. A true and correct copy of Kung’s

Response to the Petition for Dissolution is attached hereto and incorporated herein as

Exhibit “2.”

11. In addition, the Defendant and Plaintiff are parents to a four year old son

named Oliver.

12. Since the parties separated in January 2014, Plaintiff Kung has changed

her password to her e-mail account several times. Yet despite repeatedly changing

her password, Kung and her attorneys began to suspect that Defendant Chow was

reading Plaintiff Kung’s e-mails, including her confidential attorney-client e-mail


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 COMPLAINT

exchanges with her divorce counsel. Eventually their worst suspicions were

confirmed.

13. As part of the divorce proceedings, a trial was held concerning custody

of the parties’ minor son, Oliver. The trial was held over 9 days between June 5 and

July 15, before the Honorable Dianna Gould-Saltman, presiding judge in Department

NEK, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

14. During the cross-examination of Defendant Chow on or about June 27,

2014, , Defendant Chow admitted that, since the date of separation, January 10, 2014,

he had, on several occasions, intercepted and reviewed the private e-mail

communications of Plaintiff Kung since the parties had separated in January 2014.

Furthermore, Defendant Chow admitted that, on at least two occasions, he accessed

the e-mails of Plaintiff Kung during June 2014.

15. Indeed, based on statements Defendant Chow has made in the months

since the parties separated in January 2014, Plaintiff Kung is informed, believes and

thereon alleges that Defendant Chow has illegally, without any authorization

whatsoever, invaded and intercepted the confidential e-mail communications between

Plaintiff Kung and her counsel during the intervening months since the divorce action

commenced in January 2014. True and correct copies of the excerpts of Defendant’s

testimony on June 27, 2014 wherein Defendant Chow admitted to these illegal acts

alleged hereinabove are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “3.”

16. Consequently, on or about July 15, 2014, Judge Saltman made various

rulings on the testimony she had heard during the June 27, 2013 hearing. In

particular:

a. Judge Saltman found Defendant Chow (who is the Petitioner in the

family law matter) to be less than credible;

b. Judge Saltman was quite disturbed with Defendant Chow’s

admission to accessing the e-mails of Plaintiff Kung. Indeed, the Court

stated that “Petitioner [Chow] either did not understand the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 COMPLAINT

wrongfulness of his action, or felt that he was above the law in engaging

in his behavior. So the Court is going to issue restraining orders with

regard to no harassment or disturbing Respondent Plaintiff Kung’s

peace.”

A true and correct copy of excerpts from the July 15, 2014 hearing where Judge

Saltman made these rulings and findings is attached hereto and incorporated herein as

Exhibit “4.”

17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant

Chow, through various computers, either while he was working at Amazon in Seattle

or through equipment belonging to Defendant’s wholly owned company Mellowtek,

has engaged in a consistent pattern for several months, despite the parties’ separation

in January 2014, of illegally accessing Plaintiff’s e-mails including, but not limited

to, e-mail exchanges between Plaintiff and her divorce counsel.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(For Injunctive Relief, Damages, Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Costs and

Other Relief under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.

§§2510 et seq.)

18. Plaintiff Kung repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully

set forth herein the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 above.

19. The e-mails of Plaintiff Kung were illegally accessed by Defendants,

and each of them, with said e-mails containing highly proprietary, confidential and

sensitive information of Plaintiff.

20. Defendants, and each of them, were not authorized to access any of this

information.

21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants,

and each of them, intentionally accessed, without authorization, a facility through

which electronic communications services provided, and thereby obtained, altered or

prevented authorized access to an electronic communication while it was in


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 COMPLAINT

electronic storage in such system, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2701(a).

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the

information which Defendants, and each of them, took from Plaintiff is being used by

them improperly and illegally and to the detriment of Plaintiff without any legal

justification whatsoever.

23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the conduct

constituting the violations alleged herein was committed for the purposes of seeking

an illegal and unfair financial advantage in the family law case pending in the

Superior Court for the State of California, along with also seeking malicious

destruction or damage, or private gain, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2701(b).


constituting the violations herein was engaged in by Defendants, and each of them,

with a knowing and intentional state of mind, and that it was willful or intentional.

25. Defendants, and each of them, in performing the conduct complained of

herein, acted willfully and with the intent to cause injury to Plaintiff Kung.

Defendants, and each of them, are therefore guilty of malice and oppression and

conscious disregard for Plaintiff Kung’s rights, thereby warranting an assessment of

punitive damages or exemplary damages or enhanced damages to the extent allowed

by law, in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and deter others from

engaging in similar misconduct.

26. Defendants have engaged in, and it is believed that Defendants continue

to engage in, and unless restrained, will continue to engage in the wrongful and

illegal acts described herein. As a result, Plaintiff will suffer great and irreparable

injury, for which damages would not afford adequate relief in that said damages

would not adequately compensate for the injury to Plaintiff Kung, both personally

and professionally. Consequently, Defendants’ conduct, if allowed to continue,

would inevitably result in irreparable harm not only to Plaintiff Kung but also to her

child, namely her son Oliver.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 COMPLAINT

27. Accordingly, Plaintiff Kung is entitled to preliminary and permanent

injunctive relief against all Defendants for their misconduct.

///

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF



§§2510 et seq. – contributory liability against all of the individual Defendants)

28. Plaintiff Kung repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully

set forth herein the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27, above.

29. Defendant Chow, as an individual Defendant, had knowledge of the

illegal and invasive activities described herein being conducted under the auspices of

his wholly owned corporate enterprise, Defendant Mellowtek. Indeed, Defendant

Chow induced, caused or materially contributed to the illegal and invasive conduct of

the corporate defendant named herein, Mellowtek. As an individual defendant,

Defendant Chow nonetheless serves as the sole corporate officer of the corporate

defendant, Mellowtek and thus is the sole, singular moving, conscious and active

force behind the corporate defendant’s illegal actions.

30. Indeed, Defendant Chow, as an officer, is personally liable as a

contributory actor whereby his personal conduct encourages or assists the illegal

activity conducted by the corporate defendant Mellowtek.


of the individual defendant, named herein, materially induced, caused or contributed

to the illegal conduct of the corporate defendant, Mellowtek, described herein, and

that the individual Defendant, Chow, caused such conduct with a knowing and

intentional state of mind and thus contributed to the conduct consisting of the illegal

violations alleged herein by the corporate defendant, Mellowtek.

32. Plaintiff is therefore informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the

e-mails intercepted by Defendants, and each of them, were used by both the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 COMPLAINT

individual and corporate defendants, for the purpose of gaining an illegal and unfair

financial advantage in the marital dissolution action pending in the Superior Court for

the State of California.

33. Plaintiff therefore informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the

conduct consisting of the violations alleged herein was committed for the purposes of

obtaining an improper financial advantage in the marital dissolution action, as well as

for the purpose of malicious destruction or damage to Plaintiff Kung in violation of

18 U.S.C. §2701(b).



Defendants, and each of them, are therefore guilty of malice, oppression and

conscious disregard for Plaintiff Kung’s rights, thereby warranting an assessment of



engaging in similar misconduct.





would not adequately compensate for the injury to Plaintiff Kung’s financial

interests, reputation, or goodwill, as well as cause imminent and irreparable harm to

Plaintiff’s son and minor child.

36. Consequently, Defendants’ conduct, if allowed to continue, would

inevitably result in financial and/or emotional devastation of Plaintiff Kung.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Kung is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

against all Defendants for their misconduct.

///

///


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9 COMPLAINT

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF



§§2510 et seq. – vicarious liability against all of the individual Defendants)

37. Plaintiff Kung repeats, realleges and reincorporates by reference as if

fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

38. Assuming, arguendo, that the individual defendants named herein did

not have actual or direct knowledge of the illegal activity of the corporate Defendants

named herein, the individual Defendants named herein are vicariously liable for the

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq., in that Plaintiff is informed and believes and

thereon alleges that the individual Defendants named herein could control or actually

did control the illegal conduct and obtained a direct financial benefit from the illegal

conduct of the corporate Defendants.

39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the individual

Defendants named herein have the right and abilities to supervise the illegal activity

and also have a direct financial interest in the activities of the corporate Defendants

in which they are affiliated or controlled as an officer, principal shareholder, member

or manager.

40. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the conduct constituting the illegal

activity alleged herein was committed for the purposes of financial advantage,

malicious destruction or damage, or private financial gain in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2701(b).




conscious disregard of Plaintiff Kung’s rights, thereby warranting an assessment of




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10 COMPLAINT

engaging in similar conduct.












FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(For Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030 et seq. –

Against All Defendants)

44. Plaintiff Kung repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference as though


45. Plaintiff uses her computer in interstate commerce or communication

and such computers were therefore “protected computers” within the meaning of 18

U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B).

46. Defendants, and each of them, intentionally accessed Plaintiff’s

computers without authorization and thereby obtained information from a “protected

computer” involved in an interstate communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1030(a)(2).

47. Defendants, and each of them, further knowingly and with intent to

defraud accessed the “protected computer” without authorization, and by means of

such conduct, furthered the intended fraud and obtained things of value in excess of

$5,000, during a one-year period, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11 COMPLAINT

48. Defendants, and each of them, knowingly caused the transmission of a

program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct,

intentionally caused “damage” (as that term is used in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(8)(A) )

without authorization, to a “protected computer,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1030(5)(A).

49. Defendants, and each of them, further intentionally accessed a

“protected computer” without authorization, and as a result of such conduct,

recklessly caused damage to Plaintiff, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B).

50. Defendants, and each of them, further intentionally accessed a

“protected computer” without authorization and as a result of such conduct, caused

damage to Plaintiff, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)( C).

51. Defendants, and each of them, further knowingly and with intent to

defraud, trafficked in passwords or similar information through which a computer

may be accessed without authorization, and such trafficking affected interstate

commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6)(A).

52. Defendants, and each of them, further attempted to commit all of the

offenses alleged at Paragraphs 44 through 51, inclusive, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1030(b).












1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12 COMPLAINT









FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(For Injunctive Relief, Damages, Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Costs and Other

Relief under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030 et seq. -

Contributory Liability against All Individual Defendants)

56. Plaintiff Kung repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference as though


57. The individual Defendants had, or have knowledge, of the illegal and

otherwise improper activities described herein. Indeed, the individual Defendants

induced, caused or materially contributed to the illegal or improper conduct of the

corporate Defendants named herein. These individual Defendants are corporate

officers of the corporate Defendants and thus are the moving, active, conscious forces

behind the corporate Defendants’ illegal actions.

58. Plaintiff Kung is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

individual Defendant Wyndham Chow, is the corporate officer of the corporate

defendant, Mellowtek and thus is the sole, singular moving, conscious and active

force behind the corporate defendant’s illegal actions.

59. Indeed, such officers are personally liable as contributory actors when

they normally engage in personal conduct that encourages or assists the illegal

activity.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13 COMPLAINT

conduct of the individual Defendants named herein materially induced, caused or

contributed to the illegal conduct of the corporate Defendants described herein, and

each of the individual Defendants, with a knowing or intentional state of mind,

contributed to the conduct constituting the illegal violations alleged herein by the

corporate Defendants.


conduct constituting the violations alleged herein was committed for the purposes of

financial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or other financial gain in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701(b) and 1030.



















///


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14 COMPLAINT

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF


Relief under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030 et seq. -

Vicarious Liability against All Individual Defendants)

65. Plaintiff Kung repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference as

though fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 64

above.

66. Assuming, arguendo, that the individual Defendants named herein did

not have actual or direct knowledge of the illegal activity of the corporate

Defendants, the individual Defendants named herein are vicariously liable for the

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030 et seq., in that Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

thereon alleges that the individual Defendants named herein could or did control the

illegal conduct and obtained a direct financial benefit from the illegal conduct of the

corporate Defendants.

67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the individual

Defendants named herein have the right and abilities to supervise the illegal activity

and also have the direct financial interest in the activities of the corporate Defendants

in which they are affiliated or control as an officer or principal shareholder or

member or manager.

68. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that conduct

constituting the illegal activity alleged herein was committed for the purposes of

financial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030 et seq.







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15 COMPLAINT














SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF


Relief under the Interstate Stalking Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A- against All

Individual Defendants)

72. Plaintiff Kung repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference as

though fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 71

above.

73. Furthermore, Defendant Wyndham has sent e-mails and texts through

interstate commerce with the intent to harass, injure and intimidate Plaintiff, thereby

intending to cause substantial emotional distress to Plaintiff Kung by means of an

interactive computer service and/or electronic communication service or electronic

communication system of interstate commerce.

74. Defendant Wyndham’s conduct described herein above was done with

the intent to harass, intimidate Plaintiff by use of an interactive computer service

and/or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16 COMPLAINT

interstate commerce whereby Plaintiff was placed in reasonable fear of serious bodily

injury.

75. Furthermore, Defendant Wyndham’s conduct described herein above

was done with the intent to harass, injure and intimidate Plaintiff, thereby intending

to cause substantial emotional distress to Plaintiff Kung by means of an interactive

computer service and/or electronic communication service or electronic

communication system of interstate commerce.

76. Defendant Wyndham’s acts and conduct described herein above if not

done with intent to harm and harass Plaintiff Kung, were done whereby it would be

reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to Plaintiff Kung.

77. Accordingly, Defendant Wyndham should be punished in accordance

with the mandates of 18 U.S.C. § 2261(b).


















1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17 COMPLAINT



PRAYER

Plaintiff seeks judgment as follows:

1. On the First Claim for Relief:

a. Compensatory, general and special damages against all

Defendants and each of them, in an amount according to proof;

b. Punitive, exemplary, and/or enhanced damages against all


c. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting all

Defendants and each them from ever engaging in such conduct again;

d. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation to the extent

allowed by statute;

2. On the Second Claim for Relief:








allowed by statute;

3. On the Third Claim for Relief:

a. Compensatory, general and special damages against all Defendants

and each of them, in an amount according to proof;




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18 COMPLAINT




allowed by statute;

4. On the Fourth Claim for Relief:








allowed by statute;

5. On the Fifth Claim for Relief:








allowed by statute;

6. On the Sixth Claim for Relief:







AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00


VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will be initially assigned. This initial assignment is subject to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.

QUESTION A: Was this case removed

from state court? If "no, " skip to Question B. If "yes," check the box to the right that applies, enter the corresponding division in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

NoYes

STATE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE COUNTY OF: INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD IS:

Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo

Orange

Riverside or San Bernardino

Western

Southern

Eastern

QUESTION B: Is the United States, or

one of its agencies or employees, a

PLAINTIFF in this action? If "no, " skip to Question C. If "yes," answer Question B.1, at right.

NoYes NO. Continue to Question B.2.

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division. Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

Page 2 of 3CV-71 (06/14) CIVIL COVER SHEET

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division. Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

A.

Orange County

B.

Riverside or San Bernardino County

Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of plaintiffs who reside in this district reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices apply.)

Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of defendants who reside in this district reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices apply.)

D.1. Is there at least one answer in Column A? D.2. Is there at least one answer in Column B?

If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the

SOUTHERN DIVISION.

Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

If "no," go to question D2 to the right.

QUESTION E: Initial Division?

Enter the initial division determined by Question A, B, C, or D above:

INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD

QUESTION D: Location of plaintiffs and defendants?

If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the

EASTERN DIVISION.

Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below.

If "no," your case will be assigned to the WESTERN DIVISION.

Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below.

Yes No Yes No

NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division. Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

QUESTION C: Is the United States, or

one of its agencies or employees, a

DEFENDANT in this action? If "no, " skip to Question D. If "yes," answer Question C.1, at right.

Yes No

B.1. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in the district reside in Orange Co.?

check one of the boxes to the right

B.2. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino Counties? (Consider the two counties together.) check one of the boxes to the right

C.1. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the district reside in Orange Co.?

check one of the boxes to the right

C.2. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino Counties? (Consider the two counties together.) check one of the boxes to the right

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division. Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

NO. Continue to Question C.2.

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division. Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division. Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

C.

Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo County

QUESTION F: Northern Counties?

Do 50% or more of plaintiffs or defendants in this district reside in Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo counties? Yes No

WESTERN


IX(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court?

NO YES

IX(b). RELATED CASES: Is this case related (as defined below) to any cases previously filed in this court? NO YES

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The submission of this Civil Cover Sheet is required by Local Rule 3-1. This Form CV-71 and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. For more detailed instructions, see separate instruction sheet (CV-071A).

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

861 HIA

862 BL

863 DIWW

863 DIWC

864 SSID

865 RSI

Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))

All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923)

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended.

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

If yes, list case number(s):

If yes, list case number(s):

DATE:X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY

(OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT):

CV-71 (06/14) Page 3 of 3CIVIL COVER SHEET

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET

A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happening, or event;

B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or

C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

Check all boxes that apply. That cases may involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright is not, in itself, sufficient to deem cases related.

Civil cases are related when they:

September 2, 2014


kung v. chow complaint.pdf

Documents