m 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 » & Vt 0 Marc R. Greenberg (SBN ) MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 000 Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: ()- m. greenberg@mpglaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Laura Bloch L,vO A0 FILED m \ Vv \\Vv, Superior Court of California \ it> 'AH County of Los Angeles FEB 0 A Sherri R. Ci By. si rfixecutive Officer/Clerk Deputy den m IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ^ FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT sp >* 'W CD LAURA BLOCH, an individual Plaintiff, CASE NO.: Unlimited Jurisdiction BC0 vs. FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: RIFKA HERZ, an individual, and GOOGLE INC., a Delaware Corporation. LIBEL PER SE] as a nominal defendant,. SLANDER PER SE. DEFAMATION; Defendants.. INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS;. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;. STALKING; AND. VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT 0 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff LAURA BLOCH (hereinafter Bloch or Plaintiff ) alleges as follows: NATURE OF ACTION *> TJ C? JB r~ o miim m h. This action for damages and injunctive relief arises out ofh windict^e- _ -c : tj tj m i and mendacious conduct of Defendant Rifka Herz (hereinafter e^)^i» l^^usetsat' O Z X o "*. * - website, messages and letters to libel Plaintiff, oral statemenfe"and th ^l$ishing ; cn < it <i cn o cn > O In an effort to prevent any further dissemination, the specific defamatory stafenjegts are :l not included in this'complaint. Plaintiffs will request permission to file the statements under seal, upon obtaining permission to file the statements under seal will do sdr] Md Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all such statements filed under seal. l <JT Cl o o o cn -o W O g g g o o o o o >>.

2 i! i of audio files on a website to slander Plaintiff, and who has used both written and spoken statements to injure Bloch s reputation both at her company and in her family, interfere l with and impair the value of Ms. Bloch s business, engage in a pattern of conduct designed to harass and annoy Bloch, and emotionally and socially injure Bloch and her family members.. Bloch has had limited contacts with Herz, but upon information and h belief, Herz has taken such actions because she disagrees with decisions rendered in the Supreme Court of New York family court suit of Rifka Herz v. Steven Alevy, Index No. 0/0 (New York County).. Upon information and belief, Herz has engaged in a defamation campaign against any party she perceives to be adverse to her interests in that case, including her ex-husband, the law guardian for her child, psychiatrists who have rendered services to her child, and individuals associated with her soon to be ex-husband. Bloch has been a family friend of the Alevy family for over 0 years and Herz has written that she believes Bloch will testify adversely to her. PARTIES. Plaintiff Laura Bloch is a resident of the State of California who resides in Los Angeles, California. Laura Bloch is the founder and owner of a restaurant known as Meshuga Sushi, which conducts business from three locations in Los Angeles 0 County, California. Laura Bloch is a wife and mother, including of several children that <?P \'-J V? *V#v isd are already married.. Defendant Rifka Herz is a resident of the State of New York who resides in New York, New York. Ms. Herz maintains and uses a Google Gmail account which is associated with the address, rifkahl@gmail.com. Ms. Herz created a website, specifically to defame Plaintiff and others, sent messages and letters to Plaintiffs employees and family members with an intent to libel and cause her damage, and made repetitive outrageous communications to harass, threaten and annoy Bloch.. Defendant Google, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with headquarters

3 i V-. K,n -0 CD -".i 0 located in Mountain View, California. Gmail is an service provided by Google, Inc. Defendant Google, Inc. is a nominal defendant without liability and a necessary party to carry out the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks in this action - to stop routing s sent from Defendant s address, njkahl@gmail.com, to Plaintiff, her employees, her customers, and her family members. JURISDICTION & VENUE. Jurisdiction in California is proper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section. because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Bloch s claims occurred in California, Herz used a gmail (z.e. Google, Inc.) address to send the defamatory s described below, Herz purposefully directed her communications to California residents and businesses, Herz created a website that defamed several California residents, the business relationships that Herz impugned are centered in California, and the brunt of the harm, in terms both of Bloch s emotional distress and the injury to her reputation, was suffered in California.. Venue in this county is proper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Bloch s claims occurred in this county, Herz purposefully directed her communications and conduct to residents of Los Angeles county, Herz threatened physical harm to property in Los Angeles county, and the brunt of the hann, in terms of both Bloch s emotional distress and the injury to her reputation, was suffered in Los Angeles County. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Parties Relationship. Herz has been embroiled in a lengthy divorce proceeding with Steven Alevy, one of Bloch s friends, for several years, within the matter known as Rifka Herz v. Steven Alevy, Index No. 0/0 (New York County), and that matter is nearing completion.. As those divorce and custody proceedings have progressed, Herz began to lash out and has attempted to cause damage to anyone she perceives to be adverse to

4 ip U l-yj 0 her interests in the case.. As a family friend of the Alevy family and 'Steven Alevy, Herz perceives Bloch as adverse to her interests in the divorce proceedings, and Herz has identified Bloch in writing as a person Herz believes will testify adversely at trial, by stating that Bloch has future plans to testify and that she had been very vocal in her efforts to have [Herz s son] removed from [ ] Herz[ s] custody.. Over the past year, Herz had made berating comments to Bloch orally and in written communications that have been published to Bloch s business associates, friends and family.. Initially, Herz s false statements regarding Bloch were oral. For instance, at a court hearing that Bloch attended in 0, while in the presence of the attorneys for both Herz and Alevy, Herz defamed Bloch by engaging in a verbal tirade, including suggesting sexual immorality by calling her a whore.. Herz continued her pattern of verbal harassment and disparaging comments until early 0, when she boldly began to make her statements in writing.. Beginning in February 0, Herz s improper conduct intensified when Herz sent messages to Meshuga Sushi s California based employees, Bloch s family members and Bloch s friends, in addition to the s and letters she directed to Bloch personally. The Defamatory and Physically Threatening Communications on February, 0. On February, 0, Defendant published a false and defamatory , with the headline Dear Dr. Laura. The falsely stated that Bloch freeloaded from the Alevy family and suggested Bloch had engaged in sexual immorality by stating she had relationships with the Alevy family related to genetics.. Within the same , Herz threatened to publish statements to Bloch s extended family and children, with an intent to cause emotional harm to Plaintiff and her family members by stating No amount of therapy could fix the identity crisis that would be caused by the publishing of those statements.

5 NJ yi >r. iv ISP It-* ' 0. Herz s February, 0 also appeared to threaten physical harm to Bloch s family. However, Herz s threats were more carefully worded and relied on an inference raised from biblical events. For instance, the February th , referred to the Old Testament family of Hainan. The stated that While Hainan was the one who planned evil, not only was he hung on the gallows, but his sons were as well. And his family was wiped out for all eternity. Herz then stated that the children of those who engage in sexually immoral conduct are also wiped out for all eternity.. After that statement, Herz advised Bloch that if she wanted to prevent the publication of the defamatory statements about her family and to preserve the well-being and standing of her family in Jewish Orthodox community, then Bloch should do everything in [her] power to make sure Herz obtained what she believed was a fair and equitable settlement in her case with Steven Alevy, even though Bloch had no means to assert such influence over the Alevy family. The Defamatory Communications and Threats on February,0 0. On February, 0, Defendant published an additional false and defamatory , by continuing the same Dear Dr. Laura thread.. This also made additional defamatory statements related to sexually immoral conduct by Bloch, but Herz attempted to bolster the credibility of the false statements by stating that she had DNA evidence showing that Bloch s children, had a Bloch alias.. The recognized that Steven Alevy had not been copied on the prior , and republished the statement by forwarding the to Steven Alevy.. Further, this threatened to more widely disseminate the by stating [t]he rest of the family is to soon follow. Shall I begin with the Blochs & their [extended family]. The Defamatory Communication with Threats to Harm Plaintiffs Business on February,0. On or about February, 0, Defendant published an additional false

6 : : o U-I!V 'V-J 0 and defamatory by continuing the same defamatory Dear Dr. Laura thread.. Within the Herz recognized that she had orally communicated the false and defamatory statements to a Chabad Rabbi... who confinned that indeed there is a [ ] problem here. And I appreciate your grave concerns.. Herz further alleged that based on the rules applicable in the Jewish Orthodox community her publication of such statements would hinder the changes of [Bloch s] children, getting married and require any of Bloch s children who were presently married to get a divorce.. Herz further threatened to cause harm to Bloch s restaurants, Meshuga Sushi, by republishing the defamatory statements to the entities that certify a restaurant as kosher, by stating [t]he Kashrus agencies may have a problem authorizing shops belonging to someone who has committed such acts.... The good news is - This information can potentially not leak Herz Republished Defamatory Communications to Extended Family and Business Associates. On February, 0, Defendant again threatened to forward the Dear Dr. Laura chain to Bloch s extended family by stating Do you by any chance know the best contact information for the Ellenberg (since they re in London), Levine, Bukiet, & Weizel families? The Ellenberg, Levine, Bukiet and Weizel families are the in-laws of each of Bloch s children.. Upon information and belief, on or about April, 0, Defendant made good on her February, 0 threat by causing printed copies of the same Dear Dr. Laura thread to be sent to Bloch s extended family members in Chicago, IL and California. 0. The republication of the Dear Dr. Laura to the extended family members was made via anonymous letters postmarked from New York.. Publication of the Dear Dr. Laura chain to extended family members was intended to cause injury to Bloch s family relationships and cause harm to

7 icd fry-* U N-> h*** 0 her children s marriage.. Upon information and belief, on or about April, 0, Defendant made good on her February, 0 threat by causing printed copies of the same Dear Dr. Laura thread to be sent to the employees of Bloch s kosher restaurants.. The republication of the Dear Dr. Laura to the Meshuga Sushi employees was made via anonymous letters postmarked from New York.. Publication of the Dear Dr. Laura chain to Meshuga Sushi employees was meant to impair her ability to manage her business based on allegations of religious violations that could impair the business kosher status, and caused damage to her business by disrupting her employees normal business and impairing her relationships with those employees based on the fear that they may lose their employment of the business kosher status were revoked. The Defamatory Website Statements. During September 0, Herz also created a website making similar allegations under a heading titled Wall of Shame.. The Wall of Shame included false and defamatory comments regarding Bloch, including that she engaged in sexually immoral behavior. The same website, also contains links to over ten voice recordings in which Defendant reviews a confidential psychiatric evaluation report regarding Defendant s past conduct with her attorneys.. The voice recordings discuss Defendant s outrageous defamatory conduct related to Bloch, including Defendant s false and disparaging s. While Defendant disputes engaging in some of the conduct identified in the confidential psychiatric evaluation, Defendant fails to dispute that she made disparaging comments about Bloch and fails to dispute that those statements were false. Defendant also does not dispute that Herz was clearly the creator of the website because it contained embedded audio files, i to which only Herz had access. In particular, several of the audio files that were posted were of attorney-client communications between Herz and her prior counsel at that counsel s office, which upon information and belief only they attended.

8 v! CO NJ/ 'vh M CD h-* 0 she admitted she did not possess any evidence of DNA testing related to Bloch s family. The publication of these recordings on a website discloses the false statements Defendant made regarding Bloch to a nearly unlimited potential audience. The Cease and Desist Letter and Results of the Defamatory Statements. On or about October, 0, Bloch served Herz with a cease and desist letter. (Exhibit A.) However, Herz failed to take any action. 0. Upon information and belief, after the letter was sent, during late 0, the trial court in the divorce proceedings ordered Herz to delete her website, and shortly thereafter the website was removed.. It is expected that Plaintiff Bloch will uncover additional instances of defamation that were published and publicly available at various times.. The threatening s, threatening letters, defamatory s and defamatory website of Herz caused Bloch to suffer physical, psychological and emotional damage, including: anxiety, guilt, shame, depression, trust and control issues, and a withdrawal from social contact.. Herz s failure to remove or inactivate her website at an earlier time, such as when Bloch first demanded she do so, caused Bloch physical, psychological and emotional damage, including: anxiety, guilt, shame, depression, trust and control issues, and a withdrawal from social contact.. As a further direct and proximate result of Herz s tortuous acts and/or wrongful conduct whether willful or grossly negligent, Bloch and her family have suffered economic injuries, based on general, special and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court.. As a further direct and proximate result of Herz's wrongful actions, as herein alleged, Bloch has been hurt in relation to their health, strength and ability to engage in activity. Bloch has sustained permanent and continuing injury to her nervous systems and person, which has caused and continues to cause great mental, emotional,

9 physical and nervous pain, suffering, fright, upset, grief, worry and shock in an amount according to proof at trial, but in no event less than the jurisdictional minimum requirements of this Court.. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Herz: <p f- - sn m jrr-*- 0 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code section. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages against Herz, in an amount to be determined by the Court. Ill

10 S> I'yJ CD 0 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (LIBEL PER SE - CALIFORNIA ClVIL CODE a). Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs through above, as though fully restated herein.. Plaintiff alleges that in an effort to interfere with Meshuga Sushi s business operations, during April 0, Herz sent false and defamatory letters to business employees.. The s contained defamatory statements that falsely stated that Meshuga Sushi s owner, Bloch, had engaged in sexually immoral conduct, which would tend to cause those employees to fear that the business they worked for may lose its kosher status, and that were defamatory on their face without the need for any outside information. 0. Herz intentionally published the defamatory statements by mailing them to Meshuga Sushi employees.. In disseminating the written defamatory statements, Herz knew the claims contained therein to be false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity thereof.. The s expose Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or cause her to be shunned or avoided, or have had a tendency to injure them in conducting business with her employees.. In an effort to interfere with Bloch s personal relationships, Herz sent false and defamatory information in s and letters to Bloch s family and friends, as well as by posting false and defamatory information on a website.. The s, letters and information written on the website contained defamatory statements that falsely stated that Bloch, had engaged in sexually immoral behavior, which were defamatory per se on their face without the need for any outside information.. The s, letters and information written on the website contained

11 NJ> f-r-*' Sn 'v. M CP!" * defamatory statements that falsely stated that Bloch was unchaste by the standards of the Jewish Orthodox community of which Bloch and Herz are a part of, by engaging in an extra-marital relationship, which is a claim that is defamatory per se on its face without the need for any outside information.. Plaintiff has not engaged in the conduct that Herz described above, and Herz s statements in the s, letters and on the website were, and continue to be, false.. As a proximate result of Herz s defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional requirement of this Court.. Herz s defamatory statements are facially defamatory per se, thereby eliminating the need for Plaintiff to prove special damages. Nevertheless, by engaging in the malicious libel per se against Plaintiff, Herz has directly and proximately impugned and disparaged Plaintiffs reputation such that Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.. The aforementioned acts of Herz, were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, and the resulting harm that would be caused to Plaintiff and her family. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 0 li

12 hr-*- vn >V. " -J 0 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (SLANDER PER SE - CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE ) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs through above, as though fully restated herein. In disseminating the oral defamatory statements, Herz knew the claims contained therein to be false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity thereof Upon information and belief, the communications exposed Plaintiff to.> hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or cause her to be shunned or avoided, or have had a tendency to injure het in conducting business with her employees.. In an effort to interfere with Bloch s personal relationships, Herz published false and defamatory audio files on a website.. The audio files contained defamatory statements that Herz had previously made to a psychiatrist, discussed false statements that she had previously made in writing, and repeated those statements by the reading a report that was recorded as an audio file and posted on Herz s website.. The defamatory statements made in the website audio files, included that Bloch was unchaste by the standards of the Jewish Orthodox community of which Bloch and Herz are a part of, which is a claim that is defamatory per se on its face without the need for any outside infonnation.. Plaintiff has not engaged in the conduct that Herz described above, and audio files that Herz published on her website made false claims.. As a proximate result of Herz s defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional requirement of this Court.. Herz s oral communications and published audio files are facially defamatory per se, thereby eliminating the need for Plaintiff to prove special damages. Nevertheless, by engaging in the malicious slander per se against Plaintiff, Herz has

13 i i rp.hr* <&> 0 i directly and proximately impugned and disparaged Plaintiffs reputation such that Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.. The aforementioned acts of Herz, were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, and the resulting harm that would be caused to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

14 . CD JvJ >-vl 0 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (DEFAMATION) 0. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs through above, as though fully restated herein.. Plaintiff alleges that in an effort to interfere with Meshuga Sushi s business operations, in April 0, Herz published false and defamatory statements by printing and mailing hardcopies of the Dear Dr. Laura to Meshuga Sushi s employees.. The hardcopied s contained defamatory statements that stated Meshuga Sushi s owner, Bloch, had engaged in sexually immoral practices that were not consistent with conduct permitted by Kashru agencies.. Upon information and belief, Herz also contacted at least one of Meshuga Sushi s employees and made the same false statements orally via telephone.. In disseminating the defamatory oral and written statements, Herz knew the claims contained therein to be false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity thereof.. Plaintiff had not engaged in the conduct that Herz described, and Herz s statements in the hardcopy were false.. Herz intentionally published the defamatory statements by mailing hardcopies of her to Meshuga Sushi employees.. The statements made by Herz are directly contrary to Meshuga Sushi s reputation as a kosher business, because they called into question Herz s good standing in the Jewish Orthodox community and her ability to continue to meet Kashru agency standards.. Bloch s reputation and good standing in the Jewish Orthodox community is important for Meshuga Sushi to be able to retain status as a kosher business, and to be able to retain its employees, who Would be aware that the loss of its kosher business status would impair its competitive advantage.

15 .O I'vJ- ('-rj In-* 0. In disseminating the defamatory statements, Herz knew the claims contained therein to be false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity thereof. 0. The republished hardcopies of the and the oral communications exposed Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or cause her to be shunned or avoided, or have a tendency to injure her in conducting business with her employees and within the Jewish Orthodox community.. As a proximate result of Herz s defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional requirement of this Court.. By engaging in the malicious libel and slander against Plaintiff, Herz has directly and proximately impugned and disparaged Plaintiffs reputation in her profession, trade or business with her employees, by disrupting the business of Plaintiffs employees, which has a natural tendency to lessen Plaintiffs profits, and as a result of which Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.. The aforementioned acts of Herz, were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, and the resulting harm that would be caused to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive or exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. Ill

16 I,!*"* * k«n!>vf IV -v.j 0 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS). Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs through above, as though fully restated herein.. Valid employment agreements exist between Meshuga Sushi and its employees.. Herz was aware of the existence of the employer-employee relationship created by the employment agreements between Meshuga Sushi and its employees at the time of her interference with the employment agreements.. Herz intentionally interfered with those agreements by mailing hardcopies of the she had written to Meshuga Sushi employees at its restaurant locations, which letters were actually opened by Meshuga Sushi employees, and that contained numerous false and defamatory allegations related to Herz engaging in sexually immoral practices, which were contrary to kosher standards.. Herz s s disrupted Meshuga Sushi s business, and based on that disruption made the performance of Meshuga Sushi s employee s duties more expensive or difficult.. As a proximate result of Herz s tortious interference, Meshuga Sushi s owner, Bloch, has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional requirement of this Court.

17 i.< Vo I m* vo ^oj 0 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 0. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs through above, as though fully restated herein.. Herz made intentional threats, and intentionally false, hateful, and offensive statements that placed Plaintiff in a false light.. The aforementioned acts of Herz were extreme and outrageous in that by making threats of harm, threats of sexually immoral conduct, and disseminating the false information about Bloch in s, letters, oral statements and on a website, Herz engaged in a malicious campaign of harassment and intimidation that went beyond all possible bounds of decency, and such acts are atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.. Herz intended to cause, or acted with reckless disregard for the probability of causing, emotional distress to Bloch.. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Herz, Bloch has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish and injury to her reputation, and has been damaged as a result thereof, in an amount according to proof at that time of trial.. The aforementioned acts of Herz were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, and in conscious disregard of the rights of Bloch, and the resulting harm that it would cause to Bloch. Bloch is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

18 < NJ Jr-* -O 0 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (STALKING). Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs through above, as though fully restated herein.. Beginning in January 0 and through the present time, Herz has engaged in a pattern of making intentional threats and false, hateful, and offensive statements that placed Plaintiff in a false light, by including but not limited to contacting Bloch via without her permission; ing her threats that she would injure her status within her family and Jewish Orthodox community, impugn her children s marriages and would cause physical harm to Bloch or her family; forwarding false and defamatory statements to Plaintiffs friends, employees and family members that acted on those threats in an attempt to hann her good standing in the Jewish Orthodox community; and maintaining a website that published false and defamatory statements regarding Bloch.. Herz s intentional threats and false, hateful, and offensive statements were meant to alarm and harass Bloch.. Herz s pattern of conduct caused Bloch to reasonably fear for her safety and the safety of her immediate family, including but not limited to her children. 0. Bloch s fears were well founded because Herz had already been found to have engaged in bizarre, inappropriate and threatening actions against other individuals Herz perceived as taking actions against her in her divorce proceedings with Steven Alevy; and Herz seemed to believe Bloch planned to take action against her in those same proceedings and/or had the ability to increase Herz s ability to obtain a favorable settlement in that case by influencing Steven Alevy or his family.. Bloch s fears of physical harm were also reasonable because Herz had already acted on her threats to forward defamatory statements to Herz s extended family and Bloch s business employees in an attempt to injure the good standing and reputation in the Jewish Orthodox community.. In a communication directed to Bloch, Herz ominously wrote about Bloch s

19 N-> i>n hsj '*P 0 family being wiped out for all eternity, which caused Bloch to fear for the safety of herself and her children.. In response to Herz s communications, website posting and letters, Bloch who was in fear that any direct response would further incite Herz s wrath, had a friend in the Alevy family send an and had an attorney send a cease and deist letter demanding that Herz stop sending s, contacting her and posting information about her, but Herz continued to make threatening and defamatory communications, and did not remove the website based on the cease and desist letter.. As a result of the above-described conduct, Bloch has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life, and has incurred or may incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.. Bloch is informed and based thereon alleges that Herz s conduct was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Bloch and her family, and was carried out with a conscious disregard of Bloch s rights to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud, or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section, entitling Bloch to punitive damages against Herz in an amount appropriate to punish and deter other potential defendants. Ill Ill

20 NJ> Jt is,n r v-. 0 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Civil Rights Under the Bane Act - California Civil Code.,). Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs through above, as though fully restated herein.. Pursuant to California Civil Code.(a), it is unlawful to use threats, intimidation or coercion to interfere or attempt to interfere with constitutionally or statutorily protected rights.. As alleged herein, Herz has engaged in a pattern of making intentional threats and false, hateful, and offensive statements that placed Bloch and her family in a false light, by including but not limited to contacting Bloch via without her permission; ing Bloch pervasive and intimidating statements such as that her family would be wiped out for all eternity ; forwarding false and defamatory statements to Bloch s friends, employees and extended family members that threatened Bloch and her children with the loss of good standing in the Jewish Orthodox community and/or physical harm; and maintaining a website that published false and defamatory statements regarding Bloch.. Herz, through that conduct, personally and actively engaged in severe and pervasive harassment against Bloch, threatened, intimidated, and coerced Bloch by, without limitation, directing s, sending letters and posting information on a website that contained threats and defamatory statements, and which caused Bloch to fear for the safety of herself, her family members and the good standing of her business, which is her property.. By doing so, Herz intentionally interfered with and/or attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs clearly established rights under the California Constitution and California statutes, which include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) the right of privacy guaranteed by article I, section, of the California Constitution (see Cal. Constitution, Article I, Section ); (b) the right to be free from unlawful bodily restraint or harm, from personal 0

21 CO ISJ Jr-* V" ' tv 0 insult, from defamation, and from injury to one s personal relations (see e.g., California Civil Code ). As a proximate result of Herz s violation of Section., Plaintiff was harmed. Herz s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm, and Plaintiff has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to medical expenses, special damages, and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained. Plaintiff is further entitled to an injunction and to treble her actual damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code.(b) and (a).. As a further direct and legal result of the Herz s acts and conduct, Bloch has suffered emotional and mental distress, trauma, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, anxiety, and a deprivation of their civil and statutory rights. The exact nature, duration, and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Bloch, but she is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.. Herz s actions alleged herein were done with malice, fraud and oppression, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights. As such, Bloch is entitled to recover punitive damages from Herz in an amount according to proof under Cal. Civ. Code.. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney s fees and costs of suit pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code.(h). Ill -///

22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Bloch hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR RELIEF AS FOLLOWS: General and compensatory damages according to proof; Consequential damages, including the cost of bringing this lawsuit, according to proof; Costs, expenses and attorneys fees according to proof; Statutory damages and civil penalties under Civil Code Section.; Punitive and exemplary damages; For an injunction enjoining Google, Inc. from routing s addressed, 0 from rifkahl@gmail.com to Plaintiffs address; For an injunction enjoining Rifka Herz from (i) contacting Plaintiff, her family and extended family in California and Illinois, Meshuga Sushi s employees, any Kashru agency, or others associated with Plaintiff, (ii) causing third-parties to contact Plaintiff, her and extended family in California and Illinois, Meshuga Sushi s employees, any Kashru agency, or others associated with Plaintiff, and (iii) making false, hateful, offensive, or otherwise defamatory statements about Plaintiff, her family or her business, Meshuga Sushi, or others associated with Plaintiff.. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. e? i>p yi qp (t-. Ill Ill

23 \ DATED: February,0 By: 0 Marc R. Greenberg MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff LA URA BLOCH a,p fr:"-- O

24 ATTOr'JEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Slate Bar number, and address): Marc Greenberg (SBN: ) Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP - J * (0ns Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 000 Los Angeles, CA TELEPHONE NO.: () fax no.: (-) -... ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS AngeleS street address: N. Hill Street MAIUNG ADDRESS: city and zip code: Los Angeles, CA 00 BRANCH NAME: CentralDistrict CASE NAME: Laura Blolch vs. Rifka Herz, et al. A FOR COURT USE ONLY FSLED CM-0Q... Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Sherri R. Qi CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET I / I Unlimited I Limited Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: (Amount (Amount JUDGE: demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds $,000) $,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule.0) DEPT: t=ltl Items - below must be completed (see instructions on page ).. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort I I Auto () J I I Uninsured motorist () Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injuiy/Property I r-i Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort In U I Asbestos (0) LJ Product liability () S I I Medical malpractice () I I Eminent domain/inverse Other PI/PD/WD () condemnation () Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort I I Wrongful eviction () I---- Business tort/unfair business practice (0) I I Other real property () [U Civil rights (0) I / Defamation () j I Fraud () L_j Intellectual property () I Professional negligence () Other non-pi/pd/wd tort () Employment Wrongful termination () I I Other employment () By. FEB 0 Si Tfxecutive Officer/Cle k Iden CU Counter EU Joinder BC 0 Contract L_J Breach of contractavarranty (0) I I Rule.0 collections (0) I ~J Other collections (0) I Insurance coverage () I J Other contract () Real Property Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules.00-.0) I I Antitrust/Trade regulation (0) L_J Construction defect () I I Mass tort (0) I I Securities litigation () I I Environmental/Toxic tort (0) I I Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types () Enforcement of Judgment Unlawful Detainer I Enforcement of judgment (0) I---- Commercial () Miscellaneous Civil Complaint I----- Residential () I I R CO() I----- Drugs () I I Other complaint (not specified above) () Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition L_J Asset forfeiture (0) I I Partnership and corporate governance () LJ Petition re: arbitration award () Q 0ther petition (not specified above) () Writ of mandate (0) I I Other judicial review (). This case I I is I / I is not complex under rule.00 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. I I Large number of separately represented parties d. I I Large number of witnesses b. I I Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. I I Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. I I Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. I Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.i / I monetary b. I I nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. I I punitive. Number of causes of action (specify):,,, This case I I is I / I is not a class action suit. '(Jr If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-0.) TJate: //0 tffarc R. Greenberg (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) ^ (SIGNATURE OF P/RjrOR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) P NOTICE Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except ^mall clafms cases or cases filed ^ under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule.0.) 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.00 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.0 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. Page of Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court, rules.0,.0,.00-.0,.0; Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std.. CM-0[Rev. July,00] Deput

25 i '.A CM-0 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET 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 TcFtlie case 'type'"that bestdescribes the case. If tfie case fits both a general and a more specific ty^ 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.0 and.0 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule.0 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule.0 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, () recovery of real property, () recovery of personal property, or () a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule.0 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.0 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule.0. 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.00 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 Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Auto ()-Personal Injury/Property Breach of Contract/Warranty (0) Rules of Court Rules.00-.0) Damage/Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/Lease Antitrust/Trade Regulation (0) Uninsured Motorist () (if the Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect () case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort (0) motorist claim subject to Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Securities Litigation () arbitration, check this item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Environmental/Toxic Tort (0) instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage Claims Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Warranty (arising from provisionally complex Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Other Breach of Contract/Warranty case type listed above) () Tort Collections (e.g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos (0) book accounts) (0) ' Enforcement of Judgment (0) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment (Out of Asbestos Personal Injury/ Other Promissory Note/Collections County) Wrongful Death Case Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations) Product Liability (not asbestos or Insurance Coverage (not provisionally toxic/environmental) () complex) () Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice () Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice- Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes) Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract () Petition/Certification of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Other PI/PD/WD () Real Property Premises Liability (e.g., slip Eminent Domain/Inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall) Condemnation () RICO () Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD Wrongful Eviction () Other Complaint (not specified (e.g., assault, vandalism) above) () Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) () Intentional Infliction of Declaratory Relief Only Writ of Possession of Real Property Emotional Distress Injunctive Relief Only (nonharassment) Mortgage Foreclosure Negligent Infliction of Quiet Title Emotional Distress Mechanics Lien Other Real Property (not eminent Other PI/PD/WD Other Commercial Complaint domain, landlord/tenant, or Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort foreclosure) Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint Business Tort/Unfair Business Unlawful Detainer (non-tort/non-complex) Practice (0) Commercial () Miscellaneous Civil Petition Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, Residential () Partnership and Corporate,~-j false arrest) (not civil Drugs () (if the case involves illegal Governance () n_> harassment) (0) drugs, check this item; otherwise, Other Petition (not specified -- Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) report as Commercial or Residential) above) ()!"-* () Judicial Review Civil Harassment ' n Fraud () Asset Forfeiture (0)!vr. Workplace Violence Intellectual Property () Petition Re: Arbitration Award () Nr* Elder/Dependent Adult Professional Negligence () Writ of Mandate (0) Abuse Legal Malpractice Writ-Administrative Mandamus Election Contest ~-j Other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Petition for Name Change (not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Relief From Late Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort () Writ-Other Limited Court Case Claim Other Civil Petition Employment Wrongful Termination () Other Employment () Review Other Judicial Review () Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals CM-0 (Rev. July,00) Pags ot CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

26 shorttitle^aura Bloch vs. Rifka Herz, et al. I CASE NUMBER BC 0 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND... STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) TJtl This form Is required pursuant to Local Rule. in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. I ep : After completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet (Judicial Council form CM-0), find the exact case type in Column A that corresponds to the case type indicated in the Civil Case Cover Sheet. Jep : In Column B, check the box for the type of action that best describes the nature of the case. ^=^tep : In Column C, circle the number which explains the reason for the court filing location you have chosen. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Court Filing Location (Column C). Class actions must be filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Central District.. Permissive filing In central district.. Location where cause of action arose. '. Mandatory personal Injury filing in North District.. Location where performance required or defendant resides.. Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.. Location where petitioner resides.. Location wherein defendant/respondent (unctions wholly.. Location where one or more of the parties reside.. Location of Labor Commissioner Office.. Mandatory filing location (Hub Cases - unlawful detainer, limited non-collection, limited collection, or personal injury). Pi fm pa Sheet Auto () A0 Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death,, & O < I- Unlnsured Motorist () A Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist,, C Applicable Rea on hbbk^ f? * II fl I = J J is!-s aj Q Asbestos (0) A00 Asbestos Property Damage A Asbestos - Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Product Liability () A0 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental),, Medical Malpractice () Other Personal Injury Property Damage Wrongful Death () A Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons A0 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice A0 Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) A0 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (e.g., assault, vandalism, etc.) A0 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress A0 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death,,,,,, LACIV (Rev /) LASC Approved 0-0 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Local Rule. Page of

27 I SHORT TITLE: V Laura Bloch vs. Rifka Herz, et al. CASE NUMBER ^^^Icase Cover Sheet Category No ----B----- Type of Action j O-Appllcable- ~. peasons - See Step^i amegfciffsi! O. S. I jf or i i e -a c E o ra Z O Business Tort (0) A0 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract),. Civil Rights (0) A00 Civil Rights/Discrimination,, Defamation () ( A0 Defamation (slander/libel),, Fraud () Professional Negligence () Other () A0 Fraud (no contract),, A0 Legal Malpractice A00 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal).... A0 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort,, at Wrongful Termination () A0 Wrongful Termination,, E>» A0 Other Employment Complaint Case,, o. Other Employment () E A Labor Commissioner Appeals Ui A00 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful, eviction) Breach of Contract/ Warranty, (0) A00 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) (not Insurance),, A0 Negligent Breach of Contrad/Warranty (no fraud),, A0 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) A00 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff E Collections (0) o A0 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case O A0 Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt Purchased on or after January,0,,.,, Insurance Coverage () A0 Insurance Coverage (not complex),,, A00 Contractual Fraud... Other Contract () A0 Tortious Interference A0 Other Contract Dlspute(not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence)...,,,, Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation () A00 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Number of parcels., S. Wrongful Eviction () A0 Wrongful Eviction Case, e a. a cp ( V-v b~* ep <u -s = --j l» o A0 Mortgage Foreclosure Other Real Property () A0 Quiet Title, Unlawful Detainer-Commercial () Unlawful Detainer-Residential () A00 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) A0 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction), A00 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction), Unlawful Detalner- Post-Foreclosure () A00F Unlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure., c Unlawful Detainer-Drugs () A0 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs..,, LACIV (Rev /) LASC Approved 0-0 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Local Rule. Page of