Upload
arogers8239
View
127
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
-1-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ronald R. Shea, Esq. (State Bar No. 201540)
P.O. Box 5584 Sherman Oaks, CA 91413 [email protected] (818) 217-5245 (818) 390-8082 Attorney for Helen Hatat
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHWEST DISTRICT
C.A.R.E. et al.
Plaintiff,
vs.
HELEN HATAT, an individual,
Defendants _________________________________ CROSS COMPLAINT
HELEN HATAT
Cross-Complainant,
vs.
C.A.R.E. (a California Non-Profit Corporation), MARY ZUPAN, MARIA PORTER AND JOANNA PATRICE, an individual,
Cross-Defendants
CASE N0: LC089974 Judge: The Hon. Michael Harwin Dept. NW-M Action Filed: June 1, 2010 Trial Date: Not Set [PROPOSED] CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR:
(1) CONVERSION OF PROPERTY (2) NEGLIGENCE (3) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (4) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Cross-Complainant, HELEN HATAT, cross-complains against .C.A.R.E., MARY ZUPAN, MARIA PORTER, AND JOANNA PATRICE, as follows:.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. Defendant Helen Hatat (hereinafter “HATAT”) is a current resident of Los Angeles
County, State of California. Attached herewith as Exhibit A are documents demonstrating that Helen
-2-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hatat was the actual owner of the cats in question, having paid, out of her own pocket, for electronic
“RF” (radio frequency) tags embedded in her cats for identification, and other adoption papers and
documents consistent with ownership of such pets. Her ownership is incontestable. The cats are
variously named “Sage,” “Samantha,” “Daisy,” “Sweety,” “DeeDee,” “Sweet Pea,” and
“Princess.”
2. HATAT has been homeless since approximately October 2009.
3. From approximately 1998-2002, HATAT worked with C.A.R.E in a volunteer
capacity. HATAT is the Defendant in an action by Plaintiffs’ C.A.R.E., Maria Porter, (hereinafter,
“PORTER”) Mary Zupan, (hereinafter, “ZUPAN”) and Joanna Patrice, (hereinafter, “PATRICE”).
HATAT alleges on information and belief that C.A.R.E. is a non-profit corporation in the State of
California. PORTER, ZUPAN and PATRICE are real persons. HATAT alleges, on information and
belief that PORTER, ZUPAN and PATRICE are directors, officers, and employees of C.A.R.E.
4. In or about February 2009, HATAT lost her job. Upon realizing that she would soon
be homeless, and concerned that she would be unable to adequately care for her pets, HATAT
contacted ZUPAN, and asked for help finding a temporary foster-home for her cats. HATAT
specifically did not contact C.A.R.E. as she did not want her cats in the care, custody or possession of
C.A.R.E. due to HATAT’s concerns over C.A.R.E.’s ethics in caring for cats. ZUPAN arranged a
meeting between HATAT and a woman named “Jean.” On or about October 19, 2009, Jean met
HATAT at HATAT’s apartment, agreed to provide temporary respite for HATAT’S cats, and took
custody and possession of the cats at that time, thereby forming a lawful trust under the laws of
California.
5. HATAT subsequently learned that Jean had delivered the seven cats to C.A.R.E.,
and/or one or more of the C.A.R.E. associates. In inquiring about the condition of her cats, HATAT
-3-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
was advised that her cat, “Sweety,” had to have its teeth removed. Because Sweety did not have any
teeth when initially delivered to Jean, HATAT reasonably became concerned about the integrity of
the reports she was receiving from C.A.R.E. HATAT was also advised that her cats were “fine,”
only to be advised shortly thereafter that one of her cats, “Dee Dee” had died. PORTER advised
HATAT that the ashes of Dee Dee would be mailed to her. HATAT never received the ashes or any
death certificate or certificate of cremation, and received conflicting reports about the death of Dee
Dee.
6. HATAT contacted C.A.R.E. to get her cats back. HATAT was told the cats had been
taken to C.A.R.E.’s Antelope Valley facility. HATAT was told that C.A.R.E. would give the cats
back, and then at some point, C.A.R.E. refused to return the cats.
7. HATAT was even refused the collars, leashes and carrier for the cats. HATAT had
lost her companion cats to C.A.R.E and was refused anything that belonged to them as a memory of
them.
8. In view of the inaccurate and conflicting reports she was receiving, and the death of
one of her cats, C.A.R.E.’s refusal to return the cats or even leashes and collars to HATAT, HATAT
reasonably became distressed about the welfare of her cats. This distress was exacerbated by the
loneliness she now experienced as a homeless woman, having lost everyone and everything she ever
loved.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion Of Property, Against All Cross-Defendants)
9. HATAT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 8 with the same force and effect
as though set out here at length.
-4-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. HATAT never consented to or gave custody, possession or control over her cats to the
defendants, or any of therm. HATAT merely contacted ZUPAN who put her in contact with a person
named Jean whom HATAT thought would temporarily foster her cats.
11. C.A.R.E. wrongfully and without legal right or authorization from the owner of the
cats, HATAT, took possession, custody and control of the cats and treated them as though it owned
them.
12. HATAT demanded the return of her property, the cats, and C.A.R.E. refused to do so,
and still continues to fail and refuse to return the cats, or any of them, or any of their leashes or
collars.
13. As a proximate result of the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them,
HATAT has sustained damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
14. The actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, were volitional, with a wonton
and reckless disregard for the rights of HATAT and was done with malice aforethought to cause
injury to HATAT and therefore HATAT is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in an amount
to be determined.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence Against All Cross-Defendants)
15. HATAT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 13 with the same force and effect
as though set out here at length.
16. The Cross-Defendants, and each of them, since they had HATAT’s companion
cats in their custody, possession and control to temporarily foster them, had a duty to HATAT
to care for the health, safety and welfare of the cats and to return them to HATAT upon her
request.
-5-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. The Cross-Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to care for the
health, safety and welfare of HATAT’s companion cats in that one cat, Sweety, was reported
to have had their teeth pulled when in fact those cats did not have any teeth when HATAT
temporarily fostered them with Jean. Moreover, the Cross-Defendants, and each of them,
breached their duty of care to return the cats to HATAT upon demand by repeatedly refusing
to do so.
18. But for the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has
sustained damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
19. The actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, in refusing to properly
care for the health, safety and welfare of her companion cats, and further in refusing to return
them after repeated demands, and further in refusing to return the leashes and collars to
HATAT caused HATAT to suffer severe emotional distress and mental suffering, as the
companion cats are her only living family embodying all of her loved ones. This behavior is
outrageous and is shocking to the consciousness of civilized society, and HATAT is entitled
to damages subject to proof at the time of trial.
20. Helen Hatat’s father died in 1979 and her mother died in 1994. Her husband and
only daughter died in a car accident in 1986.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Against all Cross-Defendants)
21. HATAT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 13 and 16 through 20 with the
same force and effect as though set out here at length.
-6-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22. The Cross-Defendants, and each of them, exchanged communications with HATAT
from the time that C.A.R.E. was known by HATAT to have the cats in its care, custody, control and
possession. The communications were largely by email, and include statements that HATAT wants
her cats back no matter what; instructions to HATAT that she could have her cats back, and then
advising her that she could not get the cats back; instructions by C.A.R.E. attorney Robert Gentino to
not give the cats back to HATAT; she was even instructed to go to Gentino’s office to pick up the
collars and leashes, but she was afraid to, because Gentino had published his intent to have HATAT
arrested on false report to the police if she entered his building.
23. The cross-defendants knew, or should have known, that the deprivation of her
companion cats was causing HATAT emotional distress and mental suffering, as they were
repeatedly told and so advised, and Gentino even exchanged emails with a mental health care
provider from whom HATAT had sought help wherein HATAT’s distress was expressed to him and
C.A.R.E. and his replies demonstrating his disdain for HATAT and opinion that she is crazy.
24. But for the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, HATAT would have
possession, custody and control of her companion cats, and would not have suffered any damages.
25. As a proximate result of the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them,
HATAT has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
26. As a further proximate result of the actions of the cross-defendants, HATAT suffered
emotional distress and mental suffering to her detriment for which she is entitled to damages in an
amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Against All Cross-Defendants)
-7-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26. HATAT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25 with the same force and effect
as though set out here at length.
27. The actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, in doing the foregoing acts, did
so knowing that HATAT was distressed and suffering emotionally from the loss of her cats due to her
repeated demands for their return and from the communications to C.A.R.E.’s attorney regarding
HATAT’s suffering. After knowing the effect on HATAT from being deprived of her cats, the cross-
defendants, and each of them, advised HATAT that the cats would not be returned to her, and not
even their collars, leashes or carrier, which HATAT had requested so that she could have something
tangible by which to remember them.
28. As a proximate result of the actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them,
HATAT has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial.
29. The actions of the cross-defendants, and each of them, were done volitionally and with
the purpose to inflict mental suffering and emotional distress onto HATAT, from which she is greatly
suffering. These actions were malicious and in complete disregard of HATAT’s rights and for the
purpose of causing her to suffer emotionally and mentally. As such HATAT is entitled to an award
of punitive and exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant, Helen Hatat, prays for Judgment against the
Cross-Defendants C.A.R.E., Zupan, Porter, and Patrice jointly and severally, as follows:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Conversion)
1. Damages in an amount subject to proof, but believed to be in the sum of at least $30,000
per cat;
2. Punitive and exemplary damages to be determined by a jury;
-8-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Negligence)
3. Damages in an amount subject to proof, but believed to be in the sum of at least
$30,000 per cat;
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
4. Damages in an amount subject to proof, but believed to be in excess of $30,000 per
cat;
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
5. Damages in an amount subject to proof, but believed to be in excess of $30,000 per
cat;
6. Punitive damages to be determined by a jury, but believed to be in excess of $500,000
for the cross-defendants to be deterred from doing these type of actions in the future;
COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION.
7. For interest as provided by law, but to include the legal rate of Ten Percent per year.
8. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
DATE: January 26, 2012 By:______________________________ RONALD R. SHEA, ESQ, (SBN 201540) Attorney for Cross-Complainant HELEN HATAT
-9-
CROSS COMPLAINT OF HELEN HATAT, CASE NO. LC091053
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
Pursuant to Cal. Code. of Civ. Procedures § 446, I, HELEN HATAT, declare the following:
1. I am a plaintiff in this action.
2. I have read the foregoing Complaint for Conversion and Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress, and know the contents of this complaint. I declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the contents of the Complaint are true to the best of my
person knowledge, other than matters stated on the basis of information and belief, and as to these
matters, I am informed and believe them to be true.
Executed this 2nd Day of February, 2011 at Los Angeles County, California.
_________________________________________
Helen Hatat