~dlt&i~f.~g\\fnfrrr. sofi1b~s- I CASE NUMBER: D CCP (coriservatee) . Fllf!D. D CCP (authorized person) D other (specify):

Transcription

1 SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): CALIFORNIA, JUSTIN THOMPSON, VANESSA TAVALERO, AL ACOSTA, and DOES -50, inclusive ENDORSED YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: MADISON STOCKTON (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANT ): SUM-0. Fllf!D i\lamr.:n~:~ r:nunty j[jl ~dlt&i~f.~g\\fnfrrr 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 court 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 ( your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay ttie 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 ( the California Courts Online Self-Help Center ( 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 $,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ;AVISO! Lo han demandado. Sino responde dentro de 30 dias, Ia corte puede decidiren su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea Ia informacion a continuacin Tiene 30 DfAS DE CALENDAR/0 despues de que le entreguen est a citacion y papeles legales para presenter una respuesta por escrito en esla corte y hacer que se entregue una copia a! demandante. Una carla o una /amada telefnica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en fonnato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en Ia corle. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de Ia corte y mas informacion en e/ Centro de Ayuda de /as Cortes de California ( en Ia biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en Ia corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar Ia cuota de presentacion, pida a/ secretario de Ia corte que le de un formu/ario de exencin de pago de cuotas. Sino presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y Ia corte /e podra quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas adverlencia. Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Sino conoce a un abogado, puede /lamar a un servicio de remisin a abogados. Sino puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de Jucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services. ( en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, ( o poniendose en contacto con Ia corte o el co/egio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, Ia corte tiene derecho a reclamar /as cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacin de $,000 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar e! gravamen de Ia corte antes de que Ia carle pueda desechar e/ caso. The n-a:me and address of the court s: I CASE NUMBER: {EI nombre y direccin de Ia corte es): (Numero del Caso): Alameda County Superior Court Fallon Street Oakland, CA 4 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (EI nombre, Ia direccin y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): ELINOR LEARY, NO. 7 (4) 73~400 (4) P. 0. Box 7 "'. G r <n,~ J DQUAn-~ San FranClSCO, CA 40 IV!J~. A.f~.l.t.. vvnu. DATE: SEP 3 Chad Finke Clerk, by ~ ' - Deputy (Fecha) (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-0 0).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-0)). fseal] NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served. D as an individual defendant.. D as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3. D on behalf of (specify): Form Adopted lor Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California SUM-0!Rev. July. 0) under: D CCP 4. (corporation) 0 CCP 4. (defunct corporation) 0 CCP 4.40 (association or partnership) D other (specify): D CCP 4.0 (minor) D CCP 4.70 (coriservatee) D CCP 4.0 (authorized person) 4. D by personal delive!}'_ on (date): Page of SUMMONS Code ot Civil Procedure 4., 45 sofib~s- L _Plus

2 AITORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT AITORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): ELINOR LEARY, NO. 7 CLIFTON N. SMOOT, NO FOR COURT USE ONLY CM-0 ENDORSED P.O. Box 7 FH.EO San Francisco, CA 40 AlAMr-n,. "'~'~IINTY TELEPHONE NO.: ( 4) FAX NO.: ( 4) AITORNEYFOR Name: SEP a Jfi n{ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA STREET ADDRESS. 5 Fallon Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: Oakland, CA 4 BRANCH NAME: CASE NAME: Stockton vs. The Regents of the University of California et. al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation UU Unlimited DLimited D Counter D Joinder (Amount (Amount Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE demanded demanded is exceeds $.000) $.000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.40) DEPT: Items - below must be completed (see instructions on page ).. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract D Auto () D Breach of contracuwarranty (0) D Uninsured motorist (4} D Rule collections (0) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Injury/Property D Other collections (0) Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort D Insurance coverage () D Asbestos (04) D Other contract (37) LJ Product liability () Real Property D Medical malpractice (45) D Eminent domain/inverse [X] Other PI/PD/WD () condemnation () Non-PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33) D Business toruunfair business practice (07) D Other real property () D Civil rights (0) Unlawful Detainer D Defamation () D Commercial (3) I 'Fraud () D Residential (3) D Intellectual property () CJ Drugs {3) D Professional negligence () Judicial Review D Other non-piipdiwd tort (35) CJ Asset forfeiture (05) Employment D Petition re: arbitration award () D Wrongful termination (3) D Writ of mandate (0) D Other employment () CJ Other judicial review (3} ~~~VfARcm&fJ:tilY' Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules ) [.:::::J AntitrusUTrade regulation (03) D Construction defect () D Mass tort (40} LJ Securities litigation () LJ Environmental/Toxic tort (30) D Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (4) Enforcement of Judgment LJ Enforcement of judgment (} Miscellaneous Civil Complaint D RIC0() D Other complaint (not specified above) (4) Miscellaneous Civil Petition D Partnership and corporate governance () CJ Other petition (not specified above) (43}. This case D is GU is not complex under rule of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. 0 Large number of separately represented parties d. D Large number of witnesses b. 0 Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. issues that will be time-consuming to resolve D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. D Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. D Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. uu monetary b. D nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. D punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): Five 5. This case D is r-x- is not a class action suit.. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. Date: September, ELINOR LEARY, NO. 7 ~ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) NOTICE Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3..) Failure to file may result in sanctions. File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. If this case is complex under rule et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. Unless this is a collections case under rule or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CM 0 )Rev. July, 07) ~;. ;(', Page of Z CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET L.e.Q:al cat. Rules of court, rules.3o. 3.o. 3.4oo-34o : F Soluttbns~ CaL Standards of Judicial Admiristration. std. 3.. L<h, Plus C) T

3 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET CM-0 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items through on the sheet. In item, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules.30 and 3. of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: () tort damages, () punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items and. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Auto ()-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (4) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) () Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other PI/PD/WD () Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) Intentional Bodily lnjury/pd/wd (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Other PI/PD/WD Non-PIIPD/WD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (0) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) () Fraud () Intellectual Property ( ) Professional Negligence () Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (3) Other Employment () CM-0 0 [Rev. July, 07] Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (0) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounts) (0) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) () Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation () Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) () Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (3) Residential (3) Drugs (3) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award () Writ of Mandate (0) Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ-Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (3) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules ) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect ( 0) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation () Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (4) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment () Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO () Other Complaint (not specified above) (4) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (nonharassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance () Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief from Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page of

4 II ELINOR LEARY, NO. 7 CLIFTON N. SMOOT, NO II 7 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3 II San Francisco, CA 4 P.O. Box 7 4 II San Francisco, CA 40-7 Telephone: (4) II Facsimile: (4) EL.Team@veenfinn.com ATfORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 7 II MADISON STOCKTON ENDORSED FHlED ALAM~njj l'nr INTY ScP 3 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT sytviargare J.DOMir~b Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF AI..AMEDA MADISON STOCKTON, Plaintiff, CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: v. ) Negligence THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, JUSTIN THOMPSON, VANESSA TA VALERO, AL ACOSTA, and DOES -50, inclusive, Defendants. ) Negligent Hiring/ Retention/Supervision/Training 3) Breach of Contract 4) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 5) Fraud Demand for Jury Trial Complaint Filed: Trial Date: Unassigned <)...,(\ Plaintiff IvfADISON STOCKTON alleges against all defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, JUSTIN THOMPSON, VANESSA TAVALERO, AL ACOSTA, and DOES -50, inclusive, and each of them, as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS. The entirety of this complaint is pled upon information and belief and each allegation contained here is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 7 VAN!'iESS"'VE.. 5L.(T Z SA"'' FRANCISCO. CA4:> Te!./4) G73~BOD WMH.IIoeeJ'Ifirm.tom COJ\.:fPL\INT FOR DA;'\..\GES A\iD DEJ\L\ND FOR JURY TRl.'lL --

5 investigation or discovery.. The circumstances which result in this lawsuit began on September,, at University of California Berkeley ("Cal") during women's crew team practice. On that date, MADISON STOCKTON, then an -year-old freshman and a new member of Cal's women's crew team, was injured while attempting to perform weightlifting exercises at the direction of her coach. 3. The first incident occurred on September,, at Cal's High Performance Center, which is the designated gymnasium/weightlifting facility for student-athletes. There, the Cal women's crew team practice was occurring under the direction of defendant JUSTIN THOMPSON, a "strength and conditioning" coach employed by Cal. 4. During the September, practice, approximately 0 student-athletes were under the supervision/ direction of defendant JUSTIN THOMPSON. No other coaches or Cal staff were present. 5. Defendant THOMPSON lacked proper credentials, experience, and training to competently and safely coach weightlifting, did not adhere to established safety guidelines, engaged in unprofessional and incompetent behavior when coaching the student-athletes and failed to provide proper training, guidance and supervision to plaintiff STOCKTON and her teammates.. When defendant THOMPSON directed plaintiff STOCKTON and her teammates to complete a set of "deadlift" weightlifting exercises which they were not trained or qualified to complete. This was the second or third occasion in which he directed them to perform deadlifts, which is a complex exercise in which defendant THOMPSON knew or should have known that plaintiff STOCKTON had no training. Further, defendant THOMPSON did not provide any education or supervision in safe technique for this exercise, and instead simply handed plaintiff STOCKTON and her teammates a printed text list of the exercises assigned for that session. Defendant THOMPSON instructed plaintiff STOCKTON and her teammates to perform the exercise under circumstances where defendant THOMPSON knew or should have known that the student-athletes involved were inadequately trained, inexperienced, and fatigued for the reasons described more specifically below in this complaint. 7. When plaintiff STOCKTON attempted to perform the deadlift exercises, plaintiff 7 VANNESS AVE., SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 TeL (4) COMPLAINT FOR DAJ'v[l\GES i\nd DEAND FOR JURY TRIAL --

6 STOCKTON injured her back. Neither defendant THOMPSON nor any other staff member of the Cal Athletic Department had warned plaintiff STOCKTON of the inherent potential risk of back injuries while performing deadlifts. The following morning, on September,, plaintiff STOCKTON notified Cal women's crew team freshman coach, VANESSA TA VALERO, that she was having continuing, intense back pain. Ms. TA VALERO did not summon medical personnel or send plaintiff STOCKTON to Cal Sports Medicine. Instead, Ms. TA VALERO scolded plaintiff STOCKTON for having injured herself, arid instructed her to complete an "erg" workout (exercise on a stationary indoor rowing machine) for the 0 minutes while the rest of the Cal women's crew team completed normal practice in boats on the water.. Following these incidents, physicians diagnosed plaintiff STOCKTON with a herniated disc. This injury was caused by plaintiff STOCKTON's participation in the Cal women's crew team training regimen, including the weightlifting session and subsequent erg machine workout. This incident was avoidable and was the result of a reckless disregard for safety on the part of both University of California Berkeley and its employees JUSTIN THOMPSON and VANESSA TAVALERO.. Cal's stated policy is that, following an injury to a student-athlete, Cal provides healthcare and complete health insurance coverage to that student. Specifically, Cal grants coverage to studentathletes injured while participating in organized, supervised athletic workouts. Treatment is rendered via Cal Sports Medicine and University Health Services. In plaintiff STOCKTON's case though, Cal terminated her membership on the women's crew team in November, and simultaneously terminated her eligibility for care and insurance coverage in the Cal Sports Medicine system. Parties and Jurisdiction. Plaintiff MADISON STOCKTON was, at all times mentioned herein, a student enrolled at University of California Berkeley. Plaintiff was years old at the time of the initial events described herein.. Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA s responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency for said defendant at its campuses within the University of 7 VANNESS AVE.. SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA4 Tel. (4) COJ\PLAINT FOR DAJ\i\GES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -3-

7 California system, including the University of California Berkeley campus.. Defendant JUSTIN THOMPSON at all times mentioned herein was an agent and employee of defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment at the University of California Berkeley campus as a coach for the strength and conditioning.. Defendant VANESSA TA VALERO at all times mentioned herein was an agent and employee of defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment at the University of California Berkeley campus as a coach for the freshman student-athletes on the Cal women's crew team.. Defendant AL ACOSTA at all times mentioned herein was an agent and employee of defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment at the University of California Berkeley campus as the head coach of the Cal crew program.. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, joint venture, or otherwise of defendants DOES -50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names.. Each of the defendants named herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and proximately caused injury and damage thereby to Plaintiff as herein alleged. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint when their true names have been ascertained.. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents and employees of the remaining defendants and were at all times acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment.. At all times herein mentioned, certain of the defendant DOES are the successors in interest to each of the remaining defendants and, on that basis, are liable for any act, or omission of said defendants herein alleged.. Jurisdiction and venue are proper because the events giving rise to this action occurred in the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, California. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked 7 VAN NESS AVE. SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 Tel. (4) COJ\PLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -4-

8 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section Venue is proper in this county pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 34. Events Giving Rise to this Action. The chain of events which give rise to this action began on September,, during the Cal women's crew team "strength and conditioning" practice at the High Performance Center, which are premises owned and/ or supervised by Defendants identified herein. At that time, plaintiff MADISON STOCKTON was a -year-old freshman student at University of California Berkeley and a member of the women's crew team, a NCAA Division sport. On that afternoon, beginning at around 3:00 p.m., plaintiff STOCKTON participated in an improperly supervised workout in preparation for the spring rowing season. Near the end of the workout, she was completing a deadlift exercise assigned to her by Cal coach defendant THOMPSON. While in the midst of this exercises, for which she never received any technical instruction, she felt a sharp twinge in her back, followed by dull soreness radiating from her lower back into her right leg.. On September,, plaintiff STOCKTON reported to the Cal women's crew morning practice session, where she reported her onset of symptoms to Cal coach, defendant TA VALERO. Plaintiff STOCKTON reported worsening back pain that had begun while in the midst of performing the deadlift during the prior day's workout with defendant THOMPSON. Defendant TA VALERO chided plaintiff STOCKTON for having injured herself, and instructed plaintiff STOCKTON to engage in an hourlong "erg" workout (stationary indoor rowing machine) while the rest of the team completed normal practice on crew boats.. Following the incidents described above, physicians diagnosed plaintiff STOCKTON with a herniated disc.. Up until about November, plaintiff STOCKTON received care and medical insurance coverage for her spinal injury through Cal Sports Medicine. On or about mid November, Cal employee AL ACOSTA, head coach of the women's crew team, terminated plaintiff STOCKTON's status as a member of the women's crew team. Shortly thereafter, defendant AL ACOSTA terminated plaintiff STOCKTON's access to medical care and health insurance through Cal Sports Medicine, which normally is available to enrolled student-athletes injured while engaged in 7 VAN NESS AVE.. SU!TE SAN FRANCISCO, CA4 Tel. {4) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEVfAND FOR JURY TRIAL -5-

9 Cal sport activities.. Following the incidents described above, plaintiff STOCKTON suffered through months of debilitating pain and ultimately suspended her classes to pursue treatment and surgery for her herniated disc.. Following her November termination from the Cal women's crew team, Cal stopped providing insurance coverage for her treatments at Cal Sports Medicine related to her back injury sustained in the September, incident.. As a student-athlete at Cal competing in a NCAA Division sport, Plaintiff STOCKTON was eligible for and enrolled in Cal's special athletic insurance program.. Under Cal's student-athlete insurance policy, Cal promised to pay the cost of medical care related to athletic injuries sustained in the course of official Cal athletic activities. The university's sports medicine staff coordinates and pre-approve all services through Cal Sports Medicine and University Health Services.. In, in regards to the above-described Cal athletic insurance, enrolled studentathletes were granted coverage along the pursuant to the following language: The university can cover medical services that have been pre-authorized and are related to injuries that occurred in an organized, supervised athletic workout or intercollegiate competition for which the student-athlete is representing Cal Athletics, for a period starting on the date of the injury and extending for a minimum of two years following your son or daught~r's graduation or separation from UC Berkeley. After two years, we can continue to offer coverage for a period ending four years after their graduation or separation from UC Berkeley, or until the their th birthday, whichever comes first. We cannot cover injuries or illnesses unrelated to participation in our programs, nor can we cover injuries that occurred before your son or daughter began participation in our programs. Finally, we cannot offer coverage for services that occur after your son or daughter transfers their participation to another athletic institution.. Under the coverage of the above-described health insurance plan, medical treaters at Cal Sports Medicine treated Plaintiff STOCKTON's back and spinal symptoms, and also referred her to other providers. Until mid-november, Plaintiff pursued a course of treatment through this system, and received medical consultation and treatment from Cal Sports Medicine's physicians, physical therapists, and athletic trainers. 30. In parallel to plaintiff STOCKTON's course of treatment through Cal Sports Medicine, 7VANNESSAVE.. SUlTE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 Tel. (4) COMPLAINT FOR DAl'v:L'\GES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL --

10 she continued attending women's crew team practices, albeit with new physical limitations. Instead of rowing, running, or weightlifting, Plaintiff rode a stationary bicycle during Cal women's crew team practices. During this time, her back pain and symptoms slowly worsened, and she was unable to return to her previous activity levels. 3. On or about the middle of November, defendant ACOSTA summoned plaintiff STOCKTON for a meeting in his office. There, he told her, "We'd rather have you handle your injuries on your own from now on." This was Mr. Acosta's way of informing Plaintiff that () she was no longer on the Cal women's crew team, and () she was no longer permitted to use Cal's medical services for student-athletes. 3. Subsequent to the above-described meeting, defendant ACOSTA terminated plaintiff STOCKTON's medical benefits under the Cal student-athlete insurance program. As a result of defendant ACOSTA's actions, Plaintiff was no longer able to receive treatment from the physicians, physical therapists, and athletic trainers of Cal Sports Medicine. Further, Plaintiff was no longer enrolled and eligible for health insurance benefits under University's student-athlete insurance program. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION- NEGLIGENCE (Negligence of a Coach, Trainer, or Instructor) Plaintiff, as and for a first cause of action alleges against defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, JUSTIN THOMPSON, VANESSA TAVALERO, AL ACOSTA, and DOES -50, inclusive, and each of them: 33. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the "overview of action" and every allegation and statement contained in the prior paragraphs. 34. On September,, Defendants placed plaintiff STOCKTON in unreasonable risk of back injury during the afternoon "strength and conditioning" workout. As a direct result of this workout, Plaintiff sustained a significant spinal injury. 35. On September,, plaintiff STOCKTON's injury was aggravated when Defendants, having understood Plaintiffs particular symptoms and etiology, directed Plaintiff, age, to engage in further physical exercise that affected her back. 7 VANNESS AVE.. SU!TE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 Tel. (4) COivrPLAINT FOR DAIVLAGES AND DEJVL\ND FOR JURY TRIAL -7-

11 II 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, II Defendants owed a duty to of care to all reasonably foreseeable people, including Plaintiff, to plan, 3 II organize, and execute the workouts of September, and September, in a reasonably 4 II safe manner. 5 II 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants' said careless, II negligent, reckless and unlawful conduct in regards to the events surrounding the workouts of 7 II September, and September, was the direct, legal and proximate cause of the II significant spinal injuries sustained by plaintiff STOCKTON. II 3. Defendants, and each of them, personally and/ or through employees or agents while II acting within the course and scope of employment, by performing or failing to perform each act and II omission alleged in this Complaint, singularly and collectively under the totality of circumstances, II breached duties owed to plaintiff STOCKTON, engaged in conduct and created conditions which II are not integral or inherent in the sport of crew, engendered risks which are not integral or inherent II to the sport of crew, increased the risk that a significant spinal injury such as plaintiff STOCKTON's II would occur, and intended to cause plaintiff STOCKTON's injury or engaged in conduct which is II reckless in the sense that it was outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in teaching or II coaching crew, by: (a) Failing to provide plaintiff STOCKTON with adequate training or instruction in deadlifts; (b) Ignoring the fact that deadlifts, if not done correctly, pose a significant risk of extremely serious injury, and that there is a well-established sequence of instruction for teaching a student-athlete to perform this exercise safely; (c) Failing to provide any type of instruction in deadlift form, including but not limited to verbal instructions, physical corrections, technical diagrams, educational videos, or group lectures, despite Defendants' awareness of plaintiff STOCKTON's inexperience with deadlifts and weightlifting generally; (d) Failing to closely supervise plaintiff STOCKTON with qualified instructors at the time plaintiff STOCKTON was learning to perform an unfamiliar 7 VAN NESS AVE.. SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 Tel. (4) v.rww.veenfirm.com C0PLAINT FOR DAMAGES "\ND DEMAND FOR JURY TRL'\L --

12 exerclse; (e) Failing to implement, follow, and adhere to a proper sequence of 3 4 instruction or "progression" while teaching plailltiff STOCKTON to perform deadlifts; 5 (f) Directing, during an intense strength and conditioning workout in the 7 context of an intensive physical training regimen, that plaintiff STOCKTON perform an unfamiliar 0-pound exercise which plaintiff STOCKTON had only once or twice before practiced or performed; specifically, three sets of ten repititions, without first requiring plaintiff STOCKTON and her teammate group to learn and demonstrate safe deadlift form according to an established sequence of instruction before directing them to perform it under the conditions described above; (g) Employing, retaining, and failing to supervise an unqualified and incompetent individual or individuals as a coach and instructor of student-athletes; (h) Failing to implement, follow, and enforce any well-established weightlifting safety guidelines; and (i) Once having learned of her back symptoms and etiology, forcing plaintiff STOCKTON to engage in 0-0 minutes of erg machine exercises, and not immediately summoning professional medical aid or directing plaintiff to seek medical aid herself. 3. Each of the acts and omissions of defendants alleged in this Complaint, singularly and collectively, was a substantial factor in causing a significant spinal injury to plaintiff STOCKTON. 40. Each of the acts and omissions of Defendants alleged in this Complaint, singularly and collectively, engendered risks of a significant spinal injury which are not integral to the sport of crew, and increased the risk to plaintiff STOCKTON of a significant spinal injury beyond that which is inherent in crew. 4. Each of the acts and omissions of defendants alleged in this Complaint is not simply an instructor asking a student-athlete to take action beyond what, with hindsight, is found to have been the student-athlete's abilities, but rather is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved 7 VANNESS AVE.. SU!TE SAN FRANCISCO, CA4 TeL (4) COJ\PLAINT FOR DAvL'\GES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL --

13 in teaching or coaching crew. 4. Imposing a duty on crew coaches and instructors not to increas e the risk o a significant spinal injury would not alter the nature of crew or inhibit vigorous participation in the sport, because the acts and omissions described herein are not integral or inherent in the sport of crew, increased the risk of plaintiff STOCKTON's injury beyond that which may be inherent to crew, and is conduct which is totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in teaching or coaching crew. 43. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA was assisting, facilitating, encouraging and otherwise condoning coaches AL ACOSTA, JUSTIN THOMPSON, and VANESSA TAVALERO's negligent and reckless conduct and as such is therefore liable for their negligent and reckless behavior. 44. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint, plaintiff STOCKTON suffered, and will suffer in the future, economic and non economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION- NEGLIGENT HIRING /RETENTION/SUPERVISION/TRAINING (Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision/Training of a Coach, Instructor, or Trainer) Plaintiff, as and for a second cause of action alleges against defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES -50, inclusive, and each of them: 45. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the "overview of action" and every allegation and statement contained in the prior paragraphs. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times herein relevant, JUSTIN THOMPSON was a resident of an unknown county, and was employed as a strength and conditioning coach at Cal. At all relevant times, defendant JUSTIN THOMPSON was acting within the course and scope of his employment by Cal. 47. From August, through September,, defendant JUSTIN THOMPSON never gave, offered, or otherwise provided instruction in safe weightlifting technique to plaintiff 7 VAN NESS AVE.. SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 Tel. (4) wvvw.veenfirm.com -- COJ\PLAINT FOR DAM.i\GES.AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14 STOCKTON. Furthermore, he was the sole coach/instructor present during the women's crew team strength and conditioning workouts, during which time 0 student-athletes s:imultaneously engaged in weightlifting and other exercises in Cal's High Performance Center. 4. Given defendant JUSTIN THOMPSON's conduct leading up to the incident of September,, Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA were negligent in hiring/retaining/supervising/training defendant THOMPSON and (a) failing to adequately ensure that defendant THOMPSON knew the proper procedures to follow to train novice student-athletes in safe form for deadlifts, and (b) allowing defendant THOMPSON to be the sole coach and supervisor present at the workout that led to plaintiff STOCKTON's significant spinal injury. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times herein relevant, VANESSA TOLA VERA was a resident of an unknown county, and was employed as a women's crew team freshman coach at Cal. At all relevant times, defendant VANESSA TOLA VERA was acting within the course and scope of her employment by Cal. 50. On September,, defendant VANESSA TOLA VERA received notice from plaintiff STOCKTON, who at the time was a student-athlete in her charge at a morning practice session. Plaintiff STOCKTON reported to defendant TOLA VERA that she had been experiencing severe back pain beginning with the deadlifts of the prior day. In response, defendant TOLA VERA scolded plaintiff STOCKTON for having injured herself, and instructed her to complete an erg machine workout for 0-0 minutes. 5. Given defendant VANESSA TOLA VERA's conduct on September,, Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA were negligent in hiring/ retaining/ supervising/ training Ms. Talavera and (a) failing to adequately ensure that defendant THOMPSON knew the proper procedures to follow when novice student-athletes complain of acute back pain following deadlift exercises, and (b) allowing Ms. Talavera to be the sole coach and athletic trainer present at the workout leading to plaintiff STOCKTON's to aggravate her significant spinal injury. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, 7 VAN NESS AVE.. SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA4 Tel. (4) COiviPLAINT FOR DAJ\AGES AND DEJ\AND FOR JURY TRIAL

15 Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, were negligent in the hiring, retention, supervision and/ or training of coach JUSTIN THOMPSON and Coach VANESSA TOLA VERA in that Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, knew or should have known facts which would warn a reasonable person that athletic coach THOMPSON and coach TOLA VERA presented an undue risk of harm to third persons in light of the particular work to be performed. In particular, Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, knew or should have known that coach THOMPSON and coach TOLA VERA were unfit for the specific tasks to be performed during the course of their employment, namely to organize and execute reasonably workouts for novice student-athletes during their employment for Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 53. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, were negligent by failing to provide any or sufficient training or supervision to coach THOMPSON and coach TOLA VERA after hiring them, and retained coach THOMPSON and coach TOLA VERA as employees for jobs which mainly included overseeing the health, safety and welfare of student-athletes like plaintiff STOCKTON. 54. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, owed a duty of care to the public, including plaintiff STOCKTON, in the hiring, retention, supervision and training of their agents, employees, servants, and/ or independent contractors, which they assigned to coach and assist student-athletes at the school, such as plaintiff STOCKTON. 55. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, failed to act reasonably in the hiring, retention, supervision and training of their agents, employees, servants and/ or independent contractors, including coach THOMPSON 7 VANNESS AVE.. SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 Tel. (4} CO:i\PLAINT FOR DAi\.i\GES AND DEl'vL\ND FOR JURY TRL'\L

16 and coach TOLA VERA. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the aforementioned negligent hiring, retention, supervision and training of coach THOMPSON and coach TOLA VERA by Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, direcdy, legally and proximately caused or was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff STOCKTON's significant spinal injury on September,. 57. As a legal, direct and proximate result of the reckless and negligent conduct of Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, Plaintiff has sustained economic and non economic damages resulting in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to Section 4. of the California Code of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION- BREACH OF CONTRACT Plaintiff, as and for a third cause of action alleges against defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES -50, inclusive, and each of them: 5. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the "overview of action" and every allegation and statement contained in the prior paragraphs. 5. Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50 Inclusive entered into a written and/ or oral contract to provide health care at Cal Sports Medicine as well as insurance payments of related medical service costs to address any injury sustained by Plaintiff while engaged in certain physical training activities with Cal's women's crew team. 0. At all relevant times, Plaintiff paid any and all premiums due under this student-athlete health insurance program, and complied with all terms and conditions of the policy as requested by Defendants. Plaintiff performed all terms of the contract With Defendants she was obligated to perform.. For approximately months following Plaintiff's significant spinal injury sustained during the strength and conditioning workout of September,, she pursued treatment through 7 VANNESS AVE., SUlTE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 TeL (4} COMPLAINT FOR DAMi\GES AND DE\AND FOR JURY TRIAL

17 Cal Sports Medicine. All such treatments were authorized by Defendants, and were paid for by Defendants pursuant to the student-athlete health insurance plan.. On or about mid November, Defendants terminated Plaintiff's membership on the university's women's crew team, and revoked her student-athlete health insurance benefits through Cal Sports Medicine. According to Cal's coach Al Acosta, this revocation of benefits was because the women's rowing team wanted plaintiff STOCKTON to "handle [her] injuries on [her] own from now on." 3. Beginning on or about December, Defendants contested and denied Plaintiff's claim for access to student-athlete medical services at Cal Sports Medicine, and further denied coverage under the student-athlete health insurance claim, but did not cite reasons for the denial. Up through today, Defendants have sent outstanding medical bills to Plaintiff, relating to treatments for her spinal injury sustained in the September, incident, despite having previously contracted to pay all such expenses of this type. 4. Defendants have breached the contract of the student-athlete health insurance plan by refusing to honor their liability for the medical treatment and bills sustained by Plaintiff. Defendants have breached the contract by failing to pay all amounts due under the contract for the losses sustained by Plaintiff. Defendants have breached written and oral contractual obligations by failing to provide the coverage Plaintiff requested and/ or expected, and/ or by failing to act to avoid, correct or avert the mistakes of other Defendants and/ or in other respects. 5. As a legal, direct and proximate result of the reckless and negligent conduct of Cal and Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 50, inclusive, Plaintiff has sustained economic and non economic damages, loss of contract benefits, inadequate coverage for her injury treatments, loss of interest, emotional distress, and other consequential damages.in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to Section 4. of the California Code of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. II II 7 VAN NESS AVE.. SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 Tel. {4) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEI\AND FOR JURY TRLA.L

18 II FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION- BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF II GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 3 II Plaintiff, as and for a fourth cause of action alleges against defendants THE REGENTS OF 4 II THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES -50, inclusive, and each of them: 5 II. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the "overview of action" and every allegation II and statement contained in the prior paragraphs. 7 II 7. Plaintiff STOCKTON was an insured student-athlete under a policy of insurance issued II by Defendants II. Into the relationship between Plaintiff insured and the Defendant insurers, the law of the II State of California implied, and still implies, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This covenant II required, and still requires, that each party contract act with fairness and good faith toward the other, II and that neither party shall take any action to prevent the other from reaping the benefits of the II relationship. The covenant further requires Defendants and DOES -50, inclusive, and its agents II not to unreasonably withhold benefits due under the student -athlete medical insurance policy and/ or policies.. Plaintiff STOCKTON asserted a valid claim for the payment ofbenefits covered by II Cal's policy of insurance, including for treatments and consultations related to her significant spinal injury stemming from the incidents of September -,. 70. Defendants failed to deal fairly and in good faith with Plaintiff by unreasonably II withholding payment of the claim. II 7. Defendants and DOES -50, inclusive breached the covenant of good faith and fair II dealing. Said breach was a substantial factor in causing damage and injury to Plaintiff as set forth in II this Complaint. II 7. As part of the aforementioned breach, all the Defendants and DOES -50, inclusive, and II each of them, engaged in the following actions against Plaintiff: (a) (b) Unreasonably withheld benefits; Continued to deduct premium payments from plaintiffs checking while unreasonably withholding benefits; 7 VAN NESSAVL SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 4 TeL (4) ~vww.veenfirm.com -- CO:MPL\INT FOR DMviAGES AND DEivL\ND FOR JURY TRIAL