Kim Richards Dog Bite Court

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:84
Te
e
Th
Bill Zuhdi, OBA #10013

TX Bar #22293340 (Texas)
The Zuhdi Law Firm
P.O. Box 1077
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
Telephone: (405)232-1400
Facsimile (405)755-9686
Email: bill@billzuhdi.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ellen Catherine Rozario
Jay W. MacIntosh, Esq., #209912

Law Offices of Jay W. MacIntosh
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, California 91436
Telephone (310) 288-4330
Facsimile (310) 479-4629
Email:jay@jaywmacintoshlaw.com
ut
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Al
lA
bo
ELLEN CATHERINE ROZARIO, an ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-09540 AB (APRx)

Individual,
)
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
) FOR DAMAGES FOR:
) 1. Negligence
v.
) 2. Strict Liability
) 3. Negligence Per Se
KIM RICHARDS,
) 4. Intentional Misrepresentation
EVOLUTION FILM & TAPE, INC., a ) 5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
California Corporation, and DOES
) Distress
1 through 5, inclusive,
) 6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional
) Distress
) 7. Fraudulent Concealment
) 8. Intentional Misrepresentation and
Conspiracy to Intentionally
Misrepresent
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
First Amended Complaint
I. PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff Ellen Catherine Rozario (Plaintiff) is an individual with primary and

permanent residence at 5682 Exotic Rosette Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada
89139.
2.
Defendant Kim Richards (Defendant Richards) is an individual and resident
Te
of the State of California, with her principal place of residence at 3701

Loadstone Drive, Los Angeles, California 91403.
Defendant Evolution Film & Tape, Inc. (Defendant Evolution) is a California
3.
Th
Corporation, with its principal place of business at 3310 W. Vanowen Street
ut
in Burbank, CA 91505. Its California entity number is C1401613. Defendant

Evolution can be served with process by and through its registered agent Stacy
At all relevant times, Defendant Richards, a star of the Real Housewives of
lA
4.
bo
Kreisberg, 10350 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 350, Los Angeles, CA 90025.
Al
Beverly Hills reality television show produced by Defendant Evolution, was

an agent of Defendant Evolution.
5.
At all relevant times, all of the wrongful acts of Defendant Richards were
committed while acting as an agent for Defendant Evolution.
6.
Defendant Evolution exercised control over Defendant Richards at all times

relevant to this action.
7.
At all times herein material and whenever and wherever reference is made to
Defendant Richards and the wrongful acts, Defendant Richards was acting as
the agent of Defendant Evolution and was acting within the course and scope
of such agency and while furthering the business interests of Defendant
Evolution. The wrongful conduct alleged herein was perpetrated by Defendant
Te
8.
Evolution.
Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any conduct
committed by Defendant Richards, such allegations and references shall also
Th
be deemed to mean the conduct of Defendant Evolution, acting individually,
9.
ut
jointly and severally, for the benefit of Defendant Evolution.

As the principal for Defendant Richards, Defendant Evolution is responsible
bo
for all of the acts committed by Defendant Richards while in the scope of her
Al
injuries.
lA
agency, including the dog bite incident in this case that caused Plaintiffs
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), 28 U.S.C.

1332(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. 1332(c) because Plaintiff is a citizen of the State
of Nevada and Defendant Richards is a citizen of the State of California and
Defendant Evolution is a California Corporation having its principal place of
business in the State of California and the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens
of different states.
11.
Venue is found under 28 U.S.C. 1391 since the events or omissions giving
rise to Plaintiffs claim occurred in this district.
III. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff, her daughter Lianne Harris (Harris), and
12.
Te
Plaintiff was attacked and bitten by a vicious dog

owned by Defendant Richards while Plaintiff was an
overnight guest at Defendant Richards residence
Th
Plaintiffs granddaughter visited Defendant Richards residence as overnight
ut
guests. Plaintiff had known Defendant Richards since Defendant Richards was
a young girl. Defendant Richards is a star on a reality television show
At all times relevant herein, Defendant Richards was employed by and/or was
lA
13.
bo
produced by Defendant Evolution entitled Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.
14.
Al
an agent of Defendant Evolution.

Defendant Richards owned on March 19, 2014, and at times relevant to this
Complaint, a pit bull named Kingsley (hereinafter dog).
15.
Upon arriving and going into Defendant Richards house, Plaintiff discovered
that Defendant Richards had a large dog living with her. Defendant Richards
proceeded to make statements and representations to Plaintiff that the dog was
a sweet, cuddly dog and told Plaintiff she should scratch it behind its ears
because the dog liked that. Plaintiff was unaware and did not know the dog
was actually a pit bull and was vicious.
16.
The next morning Plaintiff was talking to Defendant Richards, who was lying
on the bed next to the dog, in Defendant Richards bedroom. All of a sudden
and without provocation, the dog jumped up from the bed, moved across it and
Te
attacked and bit Plaintiff. This caused severe injuries to Plaintiffs left hand,
arm and back. As the dog was attacking and biting Plaintiff, she fell
backwards onto the floor. Bleeding profusely from her wounds, as she was
Th
being attacked and bitten, Plaintiff screamed. Hearing the screams, Plaintiffs
ut
daughter rushed into the room. Defendant Richards said not to call 911.
However, emergency personnel were called. Defendant Richards begged
bo
Plaintiff, not to tell anybody and promise me you wont say anything, Ill
lA
lose my job. Plaintiff was treated in the emergency room for the injuries she
Al
sustained and suffers pain, disfigurement, emotional pain and suffering,

anxiety and other damages to this day.
17.
Defendant Richards, along with the dog, had appeared in and were part of a
continuing story line in episodes of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.
These segments and episodes with the dog and Defendant Richards, at least in
part, were filmed by Defendant Evolution at Defendant Richards residence.
18.
Prior to the attack on Plaintiff on March 20, 2014, Defendant Evolution hired
a dog trainer to correct the dogs aggression and appear on the Real
Housewives of Beverly Hills. What was presented by Defendant Evolution and
Defendant Richards to the viewing audience as to why a dog trainer was hired
during the television show broadcast on November 11, 2013, was that the dog
Te
had eaten thousands of dollars of shoes, sunglasses and personal items, and
I just think he needs a trainer.
In actuality, Defendants together misrepresented to the public the
19.
Th
dangerousness and viciousness of the dog and falsely misled the public as to
ut
the reason why a trainer was hired for the dog. Defendants misrepresented to
the public and thereby Plaintiff that the dog was dangerous and vicious.
bo
Defendants knew that the dog had previously bitten and attacked a person or
The misrepresentations by Defendants in the broadcasts of the Real
Al
20.
lA
persons.
Housewives of Beverly Hills television shows premiering on November 11,

2013, and on March 17, 2014, and other relevant episodes, caused Plaintiff,
through her daughter, to not be concerned at all about the dog and to agree to
spend the night at Defendant Richards residence.
Additionally, upon
Plaintiffs arrival with her daughter and granddaughter at Defendant Richards

house on March 19, 2014, Defendant Richards intentionally misrepresented
and concealed the dog was dangerous and vicious to Plaintiff. Defendant
Richards misled Plaintiff to believe the dog was sweet and cuddly. Not
aware the threat of the dangerous and vicious dog existed, Plaintiff, her
daughter and granddaughter all spent the night in Defendant Richards
residence.
Plaintiff believed Defendant Richards representations that the dog was a
Te
21.
sweet, cuddly dog. Defendants concealment and false statements caused
At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Richards was acting in concert and
Th
22.
significant injury to Plaintiff.
ut
conspiracy with, at the request of and/or for the benefit of, Defendant
Evolution and was acting as Defendant Evolutions agent.
Paragraphs 5 through 22 are incorporated herein as if same were set forth fully
Al
23.
lA
bo
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
By Kay Rozario against Kim Richards
at length.
24.
Defendant Richards is an individual who on March 20, 2014, was an owner

and keeper of a dog.
25.
On March 20, 2014, the dog bit and attacked Plaintiff. The attack inflicted
bodily injuries on Plaintiff and the attack occurred without warning or
provocation.
26.
On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards could reasonably have anticipated

that the dog would cause injury to Plaintiff by attacking and biting her.
On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards had sufficient opportunity to prevent
Te
27.
the dog from attacking and biting Plaintiff but failed to exercise reasonable
Defendant Richards had a duty to prevent the dog from inflicting bodily
Th
28.
care to control and contain the dog and prevent the attacking and biting.
29.
ut
injuries upon Plaintiff.
Defendant Richards failure to control and contain the dog was unreasonable,
bo
a negligent breach of duty and a proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and
At all times herein material, Defendant Richards was acting as the agent of
Al
30.
lA
damages alleged herein.
Defendant Evolution and was acting within the course and scope of such
agency. By misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the dog was cuddly and sweet
rather than the dogs true nature which was dangerous, Defendant Richards
carried out Defendant Evolutions scheme to misrepresent to the public, the
class as set forth in the Eighth Cause of Action and incorporated herein, and
those who would be around the dog its true vicious nature.
31.
As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant Richards as

alleged herein, Plaintiff was injured and sustained severe bodily injuries, all of
which have caused and continue to cause her great physical and mental pain
and suffering. As a result of these injuries, the severe lacerations to Plaintiffs
forearm, arm and hand, permanent scarring and disfigurement, injury to her
Te
back, pain and suffering, emotional distress, fear and anxiety, Plaintiff has
suffered general damages. Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for medical
treatment costs she has incurred as well as other compensation the court deems
Th
just and proper.
32.
ut
EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Defendant Richards knew her dog was vicious and dangerous and had
bo
previously attacked a person or persons. Without regard for Plaintiffs safety,
lA
Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and misrepresent to Plaintiff
Al
that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling her the truth, that the dog
was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked person or persons.
33.
Defendant Richards knew there was a high likelihood the dog would attack and
seriously injure Plaintiff yet Defendant Richards voluntarily deceived and
intentionally misled Plaintiff as to the true nature of the dog and its
dangerousness, as set forth herein. Defendant Richards actions were
contemptible, miserable, wretched and loathsome and would be looked down
upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to

have been done with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an
assessment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Te
34.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

STATUTORY STRICT LIABILITY
BASED ON CALIFORNIAS DOG BITE STATUTE
at length.
On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards was the owner of the dog.
36.
On March 20, 2014, the dog inflicted bodily injuries upon Plaintiff by biting
Th
35.
When bitten by the dog on March 20, 2014, Plaintiff was lawfully present on
bo
37.
ut
Plaintiff.
private property, to-wit, 3701 Loadstone Drive, Los Angeles, California 91403.
Defendant Richards is strictly liable for the injuries and damages to Plaintiff
lA
38.
Al
pursuant California Civil Code 3342, provided in pertinent part as follows:

California Civil Code 3342:
(a)
The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any
person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully
in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners
knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the
private property of such owner within the meaning of this section
when he is on such property in the performance of any duty
imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or
10
postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such

property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
39.
Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and
suffering she has endured and continues to undergo.
She also seeks
reimbursement for the medical bills she has incurred, as well as all other
compensation the court deems just and proper.
40.
Te
Th
previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious regard for

Plaintiffs safety, Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and
ut
misrepresent to Plaintiff that the dog was sweet and cuddly rather than telling
41.
lA
person or persons.
bo
her the truth, that the dog was in fact dangerous and had previously attacked
Al

dangerousness, as set forth herein.
Defendant Richards actions were

11

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
42.
Te
43.
at length.
On March 20, 2014, there existed in the City of Los Angeles, State of
California, a law which required that dogs known to be vicious or dangerous
Th
shall not be permitted to be loose within the premises of a person so as to
ut
endanger the life or limb of any person lawfully entering that premises.
Specifically, Los Angeles Municipal Code 53.33 states:
44.
Al
lA
bo
1(a) No person, owning or having custody or control of any dog, other

than a sentry dog, or any other animal known by such person to
be vicious or dangerous, shall permit it to run at large, or permit
it to run loose on or within the premises of such person in such a
manner as to endanger the life or limb of any person lawfully
entering such premises.
On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards, being a person who owned and had
custody of a vicious or dangerous dog, with knowledge of the dog being
vicious and dangerous, and with knowledge that it would be kept,
uncontrolled, on her premises, and permitted to run loose within the premises,
12
located at 3701 Loadstone Drive, Los Angeles, California, violated the above
quoted Los Angeles Municipal Code.
45.
Defendant Richards violation of the above cited Los Angeles Municipal Code
proximately caused injury to Plaintiff on March 20, 2014.
46.
The injury to Plaintiff resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the
Te
47.
Code was designed to prevent.
Plaintiff was one of the class of persons for whose protection the Code was
Th
48.
adopted.
She also seeks
ut
bo
Al
49.
lA

person or persons.
13
50.
Te

51.
ut
Th
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff, Plaintiffs daughter and granddaughter went to
lA
52.
bo
at length.
Defendant Richards house to be overnight guests. Upon Plaintiffs arrival,
Al
Defendant Richards represented to Plaintiff that the dog living in her house
was sweet, cuddly, and loveable.
53.
Defendant Richards representations set forth above in 52 were false.
54.
Defendant Richards knew that the representations she made to Plaintiff that the
dog was sweet, cuddly and loveable were false when she made the
representations. Defendant Richards knew the dog was vicious and dangerous
14
and had previously attacked and bitten a person or persons and did not inform
Plaintiff that the dog was dangerous and vicious.
55.
Defendant Richards made a significant effort to present to and make Plaintiff

believe the dog was a fun, peaceful, happy dog. Defendant Richards rolled
around on the floor, while hugging the dog, and telling Plaintiff she should
Te
56.
scratch it behind its ears because it liked it.
Defendant Richards intended that Plaintiff rely on representations set forth
herein and agree to be around the dog and stay the night in her home.
Th
Additionally, by misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the dog was cuddly and sweet
ut
rather than the dogs true nature, which was that it was dangerous, Defendant
Richards carried out Defendant Evolutions scheme to misrepresent to the
bo
public, the class as set forth in the Eighth Cause of Action and incorporated
lA
herein, and those who would be around the dog its true vicious nature. At all
Al
times herein material, Defendant Richards was acting as the agent of Defendant
Evolution and was acting within the course and scope of such agency.
57.
Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Richards misrepresentations and

spent time around the dog in Defendant Richards house.
58.
On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff was attacked and bit by the dog and severely
harmed as a result of Defendant Richards misrepresentations herein.
15
59.
Plaintiffs reliance on Defendant Richards misrepresentations was a

substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs injuries.
60.
She also seeks
Te

61.
Th
ut

Al
62.
lA
person or persons.
bo


16

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
63.
Te
64.
at length.
Defendant Richards engaged in outrageous conduct. Defendant Richards made
false representations to Plaintiff that the dog was not dangerous, she begged
Th
Plaintiff and her daughter not to call 911 and she begged Plaintiff not to tell
ut
anyone, as fully set forth in 15, 16 herein. These acts were committed with
the intention to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress.
bo
65.
lA
Al
rather than inform Plaintiff of the dogs true nature, which was that it was
dangerous, Defendant Richards carried out Defendant Evolutions scheme to
misrepresent to the public, the class as set forth in the Eighth Cause of
Action and incorporated herein, and those who would be around the dog its
true vicious nature.
66.
Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.
17
67.
Defendant Richards conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs

severe emotional distress.
68.
Plaintiff requests compensation for the emotional pain and suffering she has
endured and continues to endure, as well as all other compensation the court
deems just and proper.
69.
Te
Th
ut
person or persons.
lA
70.
bo
Al


18
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
71.
at length.
72.
Defendant Richards was negligent when she made false representations to
Te
Plaintiff that the dog was not dangerous, when she begged persons not to call
911 after Plaintiff was attacked and bitten and when she begged Plaintiff not
Th
73.
to tell anyone about the attack, as fully set forth in 15, 16 herein.
ut
bo
rather than tell Plaintiff the dogs true nature, which was that it was dangerous,
lA
Defendant Richards carried out Defendant Evolutions scheme to misrepresent

to the public, the class as set forth in the Eighth Cause of Action and
nature.
Al
incorporated herein, and those who would be around the dog its true vicious
74.
Plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress.
75.
Defendant Richards negligence described above in 73 was a substantial

factor in causing Plaintiffs serious emotional distress.
19
76.
Plaintiff requests compensation for the emotional pain and suffering she has
endured and continues to endure, as well as all other compensation the court
deems just and proper.
77.
Te

Th
78.
ut
person or persons.
bo
lA
Al

20
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
79.
at length.
80.
Defendant Richards fraudulently concealed and suppressed from Plaintiff that
Te
the dog owned by Defendant Richards and featured in the Real Housewives of
Beverly Hills television show was vicious and dangerous and had previously
On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff, her daughter and granddaughter visited
Th
81.
attacked and bitten a person or persons.
ut
Defendant Richards residence as overnight guests. As invitor, Defendant

Richards was under a duty to disclose to Plaintiff, the invitee, that the dog was
This fact was known only by Defendants and
bo
vicious and dangerous.
lA
Defendant Richards knew Plaintiff was unaware of this fact and that it was not
82.
Al
reasonably discoverable by the Plaintiff.

Defendant Richards intentionally concealed her prior knowledge of the fact
that the dog was vicious and dangerous and intended to deceive Plaintiff. This
is evidenced by the statements made by Defendant Richards to Plaintiff that the
dog was a sweet, cuddly dog. Additionally, Defendant Richards playful
attitude around the dog was intended to deceive Plaintiff into believing the dog
was not vicious and dangerous.
21
83.
On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff was unaware that the dog was vicious and
dangerous. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants Richards deception and
fraudulent concealment. If Plaintiff had been aware that Defendant Richards
had concealed and suppressed the fact that the dog was vicious and dangerous,
she would not have been a guest or an overnight guest at Defendant Richards
84.
Te
residence with the dog present and loose in the house.
As a result of Defendant Richards concealment and suppression of the facts,
Defendants Richards concealment herein was a substantial factor in causing
Th
85.
Plaintiff sustained damages.
86.
ut
Plaintiff severe injuries.
At all times herein material. Defendant Richards was acting as the agent of
bo
lA
agency. By misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the dog was cuddly and sweet and
Al
concealing from Plaintiff the dogs true nature which was that it was
dangerous, Defendant Richards carried out Defendant Evolutions scheme to
misrepresent to the public, the class as set forth in the Eighth Cause of
Action and incorporated herein, and those who would be around the dog its
true vicious nature.
87.
She also seeks
22
88.
Te

ut
89.
Th
person or persons.
bo
lA
dangerousness, as set forth herein. Defendant Richards actions were
Al

23
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

By Kay Rozario against Evolution
90.
at length.
Defendant Evolution made false representations that harmed Plaintiff.
92.
Defendant Evolution represented the past and existing material fact that
Defendant Richards dog is not dangerous.
On November 11, 2013, Episode 2 of Season 4 of Real Housewives of Beverly
93.
Te
91.
Th
Hills premiered and broadcast. In furtherance of Defendant Richards and
ut
Defendant Evolutions desire to induce those who watched the show into
believing that Defendant Richards dog was not dangerous, Defendant
bo
Evolution voluntarily made the decision to present for broadcast and/or
lA
broadcast a false claim. Defendant Richards stated in that episode that a dog
Al
trainer had been hired for Defendant Richards dog because it had eaten
thousands of dollars of shoes, sunglasses and personal items.
94.
Defendant Evolution portrayed the dog as playful and loving but shy and
scared around strangers. The episode further depicted that the dog, after
having been around a stranger for a short period of time, did not view the
stranger as a threat.
24
95.
The episode did not reveal, nor could it reasonably be assumed by the viewing
audience, that the dog was dangerous. In fact, Defendant Richards stated in the
episode I dont want to be that person who has a dog that bites and hurts
somebody. I want to give pit bulls a good name. The only way to interpret
this statement, selected and edited to be broadcast by Defendant Evolution, is
Te
that the dog had not caused injury to a person or persons in the past and that
the dog was not dangerous.
Defendant Evolutions representations that Defendant Richards dog was not
96.
Defendant Evolution knew that the representations it made about Defendant
ut
97.
Th
dangerous were false.
Richards dog were false. Defendant Evolution had prior knowledge the dog
bo
was dangerous and that the dog had previously bitten and attacked a person or
lA
persons. On information and belief, the dog had attacked a person or persons
Al
on the set of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills prior to the broadcast of

Episode 2 of Season 4.
98.
In the alternative and at a minimum, Defendant Evolution made the

representations recklessly and without regard for its truth to induce those who
watch the show into believing the dog was not dangerous.
99.
It was reasonably foreseeable that Harris, as a long-time acquaintance of

Defendant Richards, would watch the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills show.
25
It is reasonably foreseeable that Harris and Plaintiff would be visitors at

Defendant Richards house. For the reasons set forth within Plaintiffs Eighth
Cause of Action as well as in the Statement of Facts herein, Harris is a member
of a class of people Defendant Evolution intended to rely on the false
representations. Further, Defendant Evolution intended or had reason to
Te
expect that the substance of the representations made directly to Harris in the
Real Housewives of Beverly Hills episodes would be communicated to
Plaintiff.
Th
100. Defendant Evolution had a duty to the class, and thereby to Plaintiff, to not
ut
make the false representations as alleged herein that the dog was not
dangerous.
bo
101. Plaintiff is Harriss mother and is also a long-time acquaintance of Defendant
lA
Richards. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Evolution that Plaintiff
Al
would rely on the representations it made to Harris in the broadcasts that the
dog was not dangerous and that Plaintiff would act upon the representations.
102. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Evolutions representations that
Defendant Richards dog was not dangerous.
103. Prior to March 19, 2014, Harris had watched Episode 2 of Season 4 that
represented Defendant Richards dog as not dangerous. Defendant Evolutions
representations of Defendant Richards dog induced Harris into a false sense
26
of security that the dog was not dangerous. Relying on the representation,
Harris had no reason to believe that being around the dog would put herself,
her daughter, or Plaintiff in danger of being attacked. If Harris had known the
dog was dangerous, she and her daughter would not have visited Defendant
Richards house. Further, if Harris had known the dog was dangerous, she
Te
would have notified Plaintiff of the danger and risk of attack by the dog.
104. Plaintiff relied on Defendant Evolutions representations communicated by
Evolution through Harris. The fact that Harris was comfortable being around
Th
the dog, that she allowed her daughter and mother to be around the dog, and
ut
that Harris did not display any concern about the dog being violent or
dangerous, led Plaintiff to believe that the dog was not dangerous. If Plaintiff
lA
Richards house.
bo
had known that the dog was dangerous, she would not have visited Defendant
Al
105. Based on Defendant Evolutions on screen representations of Defendant

Richards dog, Harris justifiably believed the dog was not dangerous. But this
was not the case. The next morning, after spending time around the dog,
Plaintiff was attacked and bit by the dog without provocation.
106. As a proximate cause of Defendant Evolutions misrepresentations, Plaintiff
was injured and sustained severe bodily injuries, emotional distress, fear and
anxiety, and other general damages.
27
107. Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and
She also seeks
DEFENDANTS CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

Te
108. Beginning on or about a date unknown to Plaintiff, and continuing until some
time on or after March 20, 2014, Defendants Richards and Evolution
Th
(coconspirators) knowingly and intentionally combined, conspired,

confederated and agreed with each other and others unknown to Plaintiff, to
ut
intentionally misrepresent to Harris, a member of the class as alleged herein,
bo
and thereby to Plaintiff, that the dog was not vicious and dangerous.
lA
109. Prior to the dog attacking Plaintiff on March 20, 2014, the Defendants had
represented to Harris, a member of the class as alleged herein, and thereby to
Al
Plaintiff, that the dog was not vicious and dangerous. Both Defendants knew
this representation was false.
110. Defendants agreed with each other and intended that the dogs dangerous and
vicious nature be misrepresented to Harris, a member of the class as alleged
herein, and as a result, misrepresented to Plaintiff.
28
111. At present, the specific wrongful acts of the Defendants known to Plaintiff to
conspire to intentionally misrepresent to Harris, a member of the class as
alleged herein and thereby to Plaintiff, are as follows:
a.
On November 11, 2013, Episode 2 of Season 4 of the Real Housewives

of Beverly Hills premiered, which was filmed on location at Defendant
Te
Richards residence. A segment of said episode involved a dog trainer

who was allegedly hired by Defendants Richards because the dog had
Defendant Evolution was aware that coconspirator Richards statements
Th
b.
eaten thousands of dollars of shoes, sunglasses and personal items.
ut
in the November 11, 2013, episode were false and were a

misrepresentation to cover the fact that the trainer was hired by
In addition to intentionally misrepresenting the fact that the dog was
lA
c.
bo
Defendant Evolution to correct the dogs aggression.
Al
dangerous and vicious, Defendants misrepresented to Harris, a member

of the class as set forth herein, and thereby to Plaintiff, the reason the
dog trainer was hired. In the November 11, 2013, Episode 2 of Season
4 broadcast, Defendants concealed the fact that the dog trainer had been
hired to correct the dogs aggression.
29
112. By intentionally misrepresenting to Harris, a member of the class as alleged

herein, and thereby to Plaintiff, the facts set forth above, these wrongful acts
by Defendants show:
a.
Defendants Richards and Evolution formed a conspiracy to commit

intentional misrepresentation; and
Defendants Richards and Evolution operated and participated in a
Te
b.
conspiracy to commit intentional misrepresentation.
113. If Plaintiff would have been aware Defendant Richards and Defendant
Th
Evolution had intentionally misrepresented the fact that the dog was vicious
ut
and dangerous, Plaintiff, her daughter and granddaughter would not have been
guests or overnight guests at Defendant Richards residence with the dog
bo
present and loose in the house.
lA
114. The above misrepresentations by the Defendants harmed Plaintiff.
Al
115. Defendants misrepresentation herein was a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiffs severe injuries.
116. Plaintiff requests compensation for the physical and emotional pain and
She also seeks
30

117. Defendant Evolution knew that Defendant Richards dog was vicious and
dangerous. As set forth herein, Defendant Evolution knew that Defendant
Richards dog had previously attacked a person or persons. Without conscious
regard for Harriss safety and thereby Plaintiffs safety, Defendant Evolution
Te
voluntarily chose to deceive the class of persons in which Harris belonged and
thereby Plaintiff, by presenting for broadcast false claims and false
representations.
Th
118. Defendant Evolution knew there was a high likelihood that the dog would
ut
attack and seriously injure those who relied on the false representations made
by Defendant Evolution in the broadcasts. Yet Defendant Evolution voluntarily
bo
deceived and intentionally misled Harris and thereby Plaintiff as to the true
lA
nature of the dog and its dangerousness, as set forth herein, in order to advance
Al
their pecuniary interest of portraying Defendant Richards and the dog in a

certain positive light.
119. Defendant Evolutionss actions were contemptible, miserable, wretched and
loathsome and would be looked down upon as despised by ordinary, decent
people and can reasonably be inferred to have been done with malice,
oppression, or fraud, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in
an amount to be determined at trial.
31
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of
them as follows:
1.
Medical treatment costs, and other treatment costs previously incurred by

Plaintiff;
General damages for pain, suffering, physical disfigurement and other
Te
2.
intangible losses sustained by Plaintiff;
Medical treatment costs, and other treatment costs incurred in the future by
3.
Th
Plaintiff;
For exemplary and punitive damages according to proof;
5.
For costs of suit herein.
6.
Prejudgment and post judgment interest allowed by law.
7.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
lA
bo
ut
4.
Al
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of February, 2015.
By:
______________________________
TX Bar #22293340
The Zuhdi Law Firm
P.O. Box 1077
Telephone: (405)232-1400
Facsimile (405)755-9686
32

Telephone (310) 288-4330
Facsimile (310) 479-4629
Te
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

ELLEN KAY ROZARIO
Al
lA
bo
ut
Th
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
33
PROOF OF SERVICE
USDC Central District of California, 2:14-cv-09540 AB (APRx)
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and am
not a party to the within cause. My business address is PO Box 1077, Oklahoma
City, OK 73101. On this date I served the following document:
Te
on the parties identified below, through their attorney of record, by placing true
copies thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as shown below by the following means
of service:
Will Parsons
SHACKELFORD, BOWEN,
ZUMWALT & HAYES, LLP 47
Music Square East
Nashville, TN 37203
Al
lA
bo
ut
Michael R. White,
WHITE & REED LLP
5757 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Th
By First Class Mail: I caused each such envelope, with first class postage thereon
fully prepaid, to be deposited in a recognized place of deposit of the U.S. Mail in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for collection to the office of the addressee following
ordinary business practices:
The Zuhdi Law Firm
s/Bill Zuhdi
TX Bar #22293340
The Zuhdi Law Firm
P.O. Box 1077
Telephone: (405)232-1400
Facsimile (405)755-9686
34
Al
lA
bo
ut
Th
Te

Telephone (310) 288-4330
Facsimile (310) 479-4629
35

Kim Richards Dog Bite Court

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kim Richards Dog Bite Court

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:84

Bill Zuhdi, OBA #10013

Jay W. MacIntosh, Esq., #209912

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ELLEN CATHERINE ROZARIO, an ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-09540 AB (APRx)

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:85

Plaintiff Ellen Catherine Rozario (Plaintiff) is an individual with primary and

Defendant Kim Richards (Defendant Richards) is an individual and resident

of the State of California, with her principal place of residence at 3701

Defendant Evolution Film & Tape, Inc. (Defendant Evolution) is a California

Corporation, with its principal place of business at 3310 W. Vanowen Street

in Burbank, CA 91505. Its California entity number is C1401613. Defendant

At all relevant times, Defendant Richards, a star of the Real Housewives of

Beverly Hills reality television show produced by Defendant Evolution, was

Defendant Evolution exercised control over Defendant Richards at all times

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 35 Page ID #:86

Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any conduct

committed by Defendant Richards, such allegations and references shall also

be deemed to mean the conduct of Defendant Evolution, acting individually,

jointly and severally, for the benefit of Defendant Evolution.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), 28 U.S.C.

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 35 Page ID #:87

Plaintiff was attacked and bitten by a vicious dog

Plaintiffs granddaughter visited Defendant Richards residence as overnight

produced by Defendant Evolution entitled Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.

an agent of Defendant Evolution.

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 5 of 35 Page ID #:88

sustained and suffers pain, disfigurement, emotional pain and suffering,

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 6 of 35 Page ID #:89

In actuality, Defendants together misrepresented to the public the

The misrepresentations by Defendants in the broadcasts of the Real

Housewives of Beverly Hills television shows premiering on November 11,

Plaintiffs arrival with her daughter and granddaughter at Defendant Richards

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 7 of 35 Page ID #:90

Plaintiff believed Defendant Richards representations that the dog was a

sweet, cuddly dog. Defendants concealment and false statements caused

significant injury to Plaintiff.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

Defendant Richards is an individual who on March 20, 2014, was an owner

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 8 of 35 Page ID #:91

On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards could reasonably have anticipated

On March 20, 2014, Defendant Richards had sufficient opportunity to prevent

injuries upon Plaintiff.

a negligent breach of duty and a proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and

damages alleged herein.

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 9 of 35 Page ID #:92

As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant Richards as

just and proper.

EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

previously attacked a person or persons. Without regard for Plaintiffs safety,

Defendant Richards voluntarily chose to deceive and misrepresent to Plaintiff

First Amended Complaint

Case 2:14-cv-09540-AB-JPR Document 23 Filed 02/09/15 Page 10 of 35 Page ID #:93

upon as despised by ordinary, decent people and can reasonably be inferred to

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION