Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Transcription

1 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 14 Dwight Beckstrand (9870) BECKSTRAND LAW OFFICES P.O. Box 188 Kanosh, Utah Telephone: (949) Facsimile: (800) dwight@beckstrandlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION LUKE ADAMS, an individual, RYAN PAGE, an individual, ADAM ZUCKERMAN, an individual, AARON THOMAS, an individual, VENTUREPHARMA, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, MERCURY VENTURES, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, and SHARED SUCCESS, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT CONNELLY, an individual, MICHAEL ROBERTS, an individual, DARREN MEADE, an individual, PAUL PORTELLI, an individual, TAMMY CONNELLY, an individual, DON ASPINALL, an individual, VINCENT ANDRICH, an individual, GLENN PUIT, an individual, REXXFIELD, LTD., LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. Case Number: 1:11-cv DB Judge: Dee Benson 1

2 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 2 of 14 Plaintiffs LUKE ADAMS, an individual, RYAN PAGE, an individual, ADAM ZUCKERMAN, an individual; AARON THOMAS, an individual; VENTUREPHARMA, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; MERCURY VENTURES, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; and SHARED SUCCESS, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, complain and allege as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is a private civil action under the federal anti-wiretapping statutes brought about by Defendants intentional, malicious, and reckless conduct with respect to the illegal taping of private conversations and extensive publishing of those conversations. Defendants Scott Connelly, Vincent Andrich, and others are embroiled in contentious litigation against Progenex Dairy Bioactives, Inc., a Delaware corporation ( PDB ), certain Plaintiffs named herein, and their affiliates (the Connelly Litigation ). The Connelly Litigation has been intense and bitter. During those proceedings, one of the Plaintiffs in this action received a FedEx package at his home address with a sex toy enclosed and a note suggesting that the object be used to prepare him for what was about to happen. Mr. Connelly and his surrogates, in their own words, want nothing more than the total destruction professional and otherwise of Plaintiffs, their affiliates, and their counsel. This desire knows no bounds of decency or legality. They have lost all perspective and connection with reality. Recently, Defendants have published and conspired to publish illegally obtained confidential communications out of context on the Internet, on YouTube, via to targeted recipients, and through various other media. A simple search of YouTube and the 2

3 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 3 of 14 various websites known to have posted the recordings in question show thousands of views of this illegally obtained information. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Luke Adams ( Adams ) is an individual residing in Hyde Park, Utah. 2. Plaintiff Ryan Page ( Page ) is an individual residing in Kaysville, Utah. 3. Plaintiff Adam Zuckerman ( Zuckerman ) is an individual residing in Irvine, California. 4. Plaintiff Aaron Thomas ( Thomas ) is an individual residing in Overland Park, Kansas. 5. Plaintiff VenturePharma, LLC ( VP ) is a Wyoming limited liability company. 6. Plaintiff Mercury Ventures, LLC ( MV ) is a Wyoming limited liability company. 7. Plaintiff Shared Success, LLC ( SS ) is a Wyoming limited liability company. In this Complaint, the plaintiffs individually identified above are referred to collectively as Plaintiffs. 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Scott Connelly ( Connelly ) is an individual residing in Newport Beach, California. 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Michael Roberts ( Roberts ) is an individual residing in Newport Beach, California. 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Darren Meade ( Meade ) is an individual residing in Laguna Beach, California. 3

4 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 4 of Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Paul Portelli ( Portelli ) is an individual residing in Newport Beach, California. 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Tammy Connelly ( Tammy ) is an individual residing in Newport Beach, California. 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Don Aspinall ( Aspinall ) is an individual residing in Huntington Beach, California. 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Vincent Andrich ( Andrich ) is an individual residing in Calabasas, California. 15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Glenn Puit ( Puit ) is an individual residing in Beulah, Michigan. 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Rexxfield Ltd, LLC ( Rexxfield ) is a Nevada limited liability company doing business in the State of California as Rexxfield, LLC. 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Kairos- Meade is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business in Laguna Beach, California. 18. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as John Does 1 through 10, are unknown to Plaintiffs, which sue said Defendants by such fictitious names (the Doe Defendants ). If necessary, Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to state the Doe Defendants true names and capacitates when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that the Doe Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in 4

5 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 5 of 14 this Complaint, and that Plaintiffs damages as alleged in this Complaint were proximately caused by those defendants. Whenever it is alleged that any act or omission was done or committed by any specifically named defendant, Plaintiffs intend thereby to allege that the same act or omission was also done and committed by each and every Doe Defendant, both separately and in concert or in conspiracy with the named defendants. 19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege on information and belief, that at all times herein mentioned Doe Defendants 1 through 10 acted as the authorized principals or agents of the named defendants and, further, in doing the things alleged in this Complaint, were acting, or had their agents act, within the course and scope of that agency and with the knowledge, consent, and ratification of such defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This Court has federal jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. 1331, in as much as this action invokes a federal statute, namely the federal anti-wiretapping provisions of 18 U.S.C. 2501, et seq. 21. Venue is appropriate since the instant matter involves Defendants unlawful digital recording, interception, and subsequent publication of private, confidential communications was deliberately directed at certain Plaintiffs and their counsel and other advisors residing in various cities and towns located in this judicial district. / / / / / / / / / / / / 5

6 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 6 of 14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Action under 18 U.S.C Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations of each of the previous paragraphs by reference as though alleged in full at this point. 23. In or about November 2010, Defendant Roberts was hired/contracted by PDB. PDB has since discovered that Roberts s hiring was part of a premeditated plan orchestrated by Defendant Meade (who was acting as the self-appointed interim CEO of PDB at the time), who under the false pretense of hiring Roberts as a service provide actually intended to use PDB and/or its affiliates to finance certain digital reputation-management technology apparently owned by Defendant Rexxfield, a Roberts-controlled entity. Meade and Roberts are joined at the hip, presently, despite curious events of individualized paranoia and threats against one another between November 2010 and February Subsequent to both being dismissed by PDB, Meade and Roberts chose to consolidate on common ground with Connelly in what both Roberts and Meade have described as a holy war, as evidenced by written and verbal communications to Plaintiffs. 24. Subsequent to Roberts s hiring, at the encouragement of Meade, PDB and Roberts entered into formal discussions related to a transaction for the purchase or license of certain reputation-management technology purported by Roberts, Meade and Portelli to be owned by Rexxfield. Roberts represented that the Rexxfield technology was used by celebrities and other public figures to manage defamatory and salacious Internet content. However, Roberts knew at that time, and has since admitted, that Rexxfield did not in fact own any of the intellectual property associated with the reputation-defense business Roberts was trying to sell. 6

7 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 7 of In or about December 2010 through February 2011, in a series of meetings attended live and via telephone conference between Plaintiffs and Defendants Roberts, Meade, and Portelli, the parties discussed a proposed transaction with Rexxfield for the purpose of acquiring the assets related to Rexxfield s reputation-management business (the Rexxfield Transaction ). During negotiations of the Rexxfield Transaction, Plaintiffs, through PDB, had contracted with Rexxfield to track down and manage on- and offline acts of extortion and harassment by Connelly and his surrogates in connection with the Connelly Litigation. Under this contract, Rexxfield received significant payments from PDB, and related, entities held by PDB investors, acquired a sixty percent interest in Rexxfield in exchange for those payments. Under the Rexxfield-PDB contract, Plaintiffs disclosed significant details regarding Plaintiffs business planning and their strategies related to the Connelly Litigation. 26. Prior to the start of one Rexxfield Transaction meeting, Roberts had indicated that he had a bad memory because he was traumatized by his wife s recent attempt on his life, and that he therefore might need to make a digital recording of certain portions of the meeting for his later use in shoring up his notes. Roberts was given limited permission, based on his representations, to record only the meeting in question for the sole purpose of aiding his memory. 27. Roberts had a digital recorder that doubled as a pen, and he used that device to record not only the meeting in question but secretly used the device in all subsequent meetings with Plaintiffs. Roberts insisted that Meade also get a pen recorder and use it as a valuable tool in a premeditated conspiracy to record confidential conversations with Plaintiffs and use them for illicit purposes, out of context, with the intent of causing harm to Plaintiffs. 7

8 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 8 of In addition to surreptitiously recording certain meetings without consent with the pen device, Roberts also used his laptop computer to record all of his meetings with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have since learned that Defendant Portelli, without consent and unbeknownst to Plaintiffs at the time, recorded various confidential conversations between Plaintiffs and Roberts on his laptop computer. Defendant Meade has also since admitted that he recorded meetings and other conversations to which Plaintiffs were parties. 29. The parties to the Rexxfield Transaction had executed a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement, such that Plaintiffs felt comfortable sharing information that they otherwise would not have disclosed during said meetings. 30. In February 2011, with due diligence underway, Plaintiffs discovered that Rexxfield/Roberts did not own the reputation-management technology they had offered to sell. Rexxfield/Roberts were in default on their license of the reputation-management technology and had forfeited significant rights to it. Nevertheless, Rexxfield sold a sixty percent interest in the technology to Plaintiffs (knowing that it did not own that technology) in exchange for payments made to Rexxfield during preliminary stages of the Rexxfield Transaction. It was also discovered in due diligence that Rexxfield and Roberts had an unpaid and delinquent debt to Mohamar Gaddafi, after an unsuccessful attempt to render services to the former Lybian dictator, and Plaintiffs refused to pay that debt on behalf of Rexxfield. 31. Plaintiffs and their affiliates terminated their dealings with and further funding of Rexxfield when they discovered the ownership issues described above and other acts of subterfuge and misappropriation of funds in certain of Plaintiffs PayPal and bank accounts. Upon discovery of Rexxfield s/roberts plot, Portelli, at the direction of Rexxfield/Roberts, 8

9 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 9 of 14 stormed the offices of PDB, assaulting three people in the process, in an attempt to remove property. PDB filed a police report with respect to the Portelli incident. Plaintiffs still claim a sixty percent ownership interest in Rexxfield based on their payments made under the contract described above. 32. Shortly after Plaintiffs terminated their dealings with and funding of Rexxfield, Defendants began publishing altered versions of their secretly recorded communications with Plaintiffs on the Internet (via YouTube and otherwise) and attaching those communications to targeted messages. 33. Defendants have continued to edit, use, publish, and disseminate Plaintiffs confidential communications through the date of this Complaint. 34. The federal anti-wiretapping statute, codified at 18 U.S.C et seq. (the Federal Wiretap Law ), provides that any person who intentionally intercepts... any wire, oral, or electronic communication... [or] intentionally discloses... to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication is guilty of the Federal Wiretap Law. 35. The Federal Wiretap Law allows a private right of action, 18 U.S.C. 2520, providing that any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used... may in a civil action recover statutory damages at the rate of $100 per day per perpetrator per violation. 36. The Federal Wiretap Law is severe, prohibiting and punishing not only the initial interception of communications but also each and every subsequent use of any recordings obtained in contravention of the Federal Wiretap Law. The Federal Wiretap Law also mandates an award of attorneys fees. 9

10 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 10 of The federal criminal statute provides that [i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense... and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be [found guilty]. 18 U.S.C Defendants, and each of them, have expressly indicated their common goal to defeat Plaintiffs and their affiliates in the Connelly Litigation and to destroy Plaintiffs business. All of Defendants have cooperated, with Connelly/Tammy financing the lion s share of the cost, in this collaborative effort. Defendants have an interconnectedness that gives them, and each of them, an individual reason for pursuing this conspiracy: a. On information and belief, Defendants Connelly, Roberts, and Portelli conspired through Meade, prior to the Rexxfield Transaction meetings, to have Roberts and Portelli approach Plaintiffs and their affiliates with an irresistible offer regarding the Rexxfield Transaction in order to encourage Plaintiffs to engage in discussions of confidential information about Plaintiffs business and litigation strategies, and to gather information that could be used in Connelly s litigation against Plaintiffs and generally to go on a fishing expedition. b. Defendant Meade was, during negotiations of the Rexxfield Transaction, associated with PDB as its self-appointed interim CEO. Before his association with PDB, however, Meade had had significant business dealings with Defendant Connelly, dealings which ultimately resulted in litigation and Connelly s obtaining a million-dollar money judgment against Meade, still unsatisfied. Meade was terminated from PDB in February 2011, for cause, including PDB s discovery of Meade s inappropriate s and propositioning of male and female co-workers and related stalking, gross negligence, 10

11 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 11 of 14 obsessive behavior related to Connelly, the pursuit of unrelated business opportunities, and a failure to disclose his background. On information and belief, Meade has a history of harassment, stalking, and sexual misconduct, conduct which has led to the issuance of at least two restraining orders, one which was obtained by PDB in the summer of 2011 to limit Meade s escalating attacks and harassment of PDB investors and management. In addition to Meade s criminal history of sexual misconduct and harassment, on information and belief Meade has previous criminal convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and possession of a controlled substance. Meade also was investigated for rape after publishing ads for roommates who can cook, and allegedly drugged and raped a woman who had responded to such an ad. When Meade s association with PDB was terminated, Meade, formerly a bitter rival of Connelly s, cozied up to Connelly and began to conspire with Connelly and the other Defendants to publish and disseminate the illegally recorded communications, making available to them many recordings of confidential communications Meade had made in the meetings related to the Rexxfield Transaction and recordings of phone conversations with Meade both before and after he was terminated. c. Defendant Andrich is a party to the Connelly Litigation, and has an interest equal to that of Connelly s in destroying Plaintiffs. d. Defendant Aspinall, a former employee of PDB, has, on information and belief, intercepted Plaintiff Page s Google Chat communications and other messages. Defendant Aspinall has published hyper-specific details of confidential chats that could only be known to the parties to those chats. 11

12 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 12 of 14 e. Various digital signatures to documents published on the Internet and in communications are of Defendants Meade, Roberts, Portelli, Tammy, Aspinall, and Puit, indicating that the documents originated on computers or devices registered in their names. 39. The federal criminal statute provides that [w]hoever commits an offense... or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal[, and w]hoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense... is punishable as a principal. 18 U.S.C. 2. Defendants, and each of them, are punishable as principals in the offenses identified in this Complaint as aiders and abettors. 40. Defendants have taken both a shotgun and rifle approach to the dissemination of Plaintiffs confidential communications. Defendants have broadly disseminated Plaintiffs confidential communications by publishing excerpts of those communications on the Internet, on the popular media site YouTube and on various websites apparently set up for the sole purpose of disseminating the illegally obtained communications to the widest audience possible. Defendants have also taken a more targeted approach, sending excerpts of the illegally obtained communications via to regulators at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, the FBI, to investors who have invested money in certain of Plaintiffs affiliates, and to other specifically identified and targeted recipients. 41. Under the Federal Wiretap Law, Defendants, and each of them, are liable to Plaintiffs for the unauthorized recording and use of Plaintiffs confidential communications, at the statutory rate of $100 per day per occurrence, all in an amount to be determined according to 12

13 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 13 of 14 proof at the time of trial. By way of example, on Connelly s web site ( seventeen recordings are published on a particular page of that site, and that page currently shows approximately 9,000 views of those recordings, which simple arithmetic on that one web site alone yields a per occurrence penalty into the millions of dollars based on the number of days since the posts first appeared. 42. The Federal Wiretap Law provides for injunctive relief in any private right of action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray as follows: 1. For a judgment in Plaintiffs favor on each and every cause of action alleged in the Complaint; 2. For damages in connection with Defendants violation of the Federal Wiretap Provisions in an amount of $100 per day per Defendant per occurrence (meaning each recording and each subsequent use under 18 U.S.C. 2520(a)); 3. For attorneys fees and costs of suit as specifically required by the Federal Wiretap Provisions; 4. In as much as injunctive relief is specifically provided for in the Federal Wiretap Law, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue the following preliminary and permanent injunctive relief: a. That Defendants, and each of them, and their respective agents and employees, and all other persons and entities in active concert, participation or privity 13

14 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2 Filed 11/23/11 Page 14 of 14 with Defendants be prohibited from using or disseminating any recording of any of Plaintiffs communications; b. That Defendants, and each of them, and their respective agents and employees, and all other persons and entities in active concert, participation or privity with Defendants destroy forthwith any and all recordings, copies, transcripts, or other reproductions of such communications; c. That Defendants, and each of them, and their respective agents and employees, and all other persons and entities in active concert, participation or privity with Defendants remove and shut down forthwith any and all postings, websites, YouTube videos, or other broad-based dissemination of such communications, and retract any and all messages transmitting the same; and 5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED this 22 nd day of November, BECKSTRAND LAW OFFICES /s/ Dwight Beckstrand Dwight Beckstrand Attorney for Plaintiffs 14

15 Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2-1 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 2 JS 44 (Rev. ) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS!! Luke Adams, Ryan Page, Adam Zuckerman, Aaron Thomas! Scott Connelly, Michael Roberts, Darren Meade, Paul Portelli,!!! VenturePharma, LLC, Mercury Ventures, LLC, Shared Success, LLC Tammy Connelly, Don Aspinall, Vincent Andrich, Glenn Puit,!! Rexxfield Ltd., LLC (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cache County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)!! Dwight Beckstrand (UBN: 9870) BECKSTRAND LAW OFFICES! Unknown! P.O. Box 188 Kanosh, Utah Tel: (949) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff) (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionment 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC Antitrust 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influenced and 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit (Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange 160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Matters 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation Act Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 896 Arbitration REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Procedure 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting Sentence or Defendant) Agency Decision 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment Habeas Corpus: 871 IRS Third Party 950 Constitutionality of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ 530 General 26 USC 7609 State Statutes 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/disabilities Mandamus & Other 462 Naturalization Application Employment 550 Civil Rights 463 Habeas Corpus Amer. w/disabilities Prison Condition Alien Detainee Other 560 Civil Detainee - (Prisoner Petition) 448 Education Conditions of 465 Other Immigration Confinement Actions V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only) Transferred from 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 another district 6 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (specify) Litigation Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 18 U.S.C VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Private cause of action under federal anti-wiretapping statute VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 upon proof at trial JURY DEMAND: Yes No VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE November 22, 2011 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

16 JS 44 Reverse (Rev. ) Case 1:11-cv DB Document 2-1 Filed 11/23/11 Page 2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the defendant is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section (see attachment). II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an X in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C and Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an X in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an X in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an X in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge s decision. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an X in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.