John Doe vs.

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
KENNICK & ASSOCIATES

110 E. WILSHIRE AVE., SUITE 401
FULLERTON, CA 92832
TELEPHONE: (714) 992-6600
FACSIMILE: (714) 992-6602
MICHAEL T. KENNICK, CBN 132406
mkennick@kennicklaw.com
JOHN C. ELLIS, CBN 217813
jellisakennicklaw.com
KAREN TYNAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
1083 VINE STREET, #201
HEALDSBURG, CA 95448
TELEPHONE: (707) 395-0062
FACSIMILE: (707 526-1716
KAREN TYNAN, CBN 217775
dktynan@comcast.net
Attorneys for Defendants, CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as
KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously
sued as KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS,
LLC; PETER AC WORTH; and HOGAN KARL aka VAN DARKHOLME
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

) CASE NO.:
)
) NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28
Plaintiff,
) U.S.C. 1441(b)DIVERSITY
) JURISDICTION
VS.
)
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC;)
CYBERNET)
KINKMEN.COM;
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY
STUDIOS, LLC; PETER ACWORTH)) Complaint Filed: 4-28-15
HOGAN KARL aka VAN DARKHOLME, and) First Amended Complaint Filed: 6-30-15
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED COURT:
JOHN DOE,
27
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants, CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT,
28
LLC, erroneously sued as KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; CYBERNET

-1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PETER AC WORTH; and HOGAN
KARL aka VAN DARKHOLME ("Defendants") hereby remove to this Court the action entitled
Doe v. Kink.Com, et al., Case No. CGC-15-545550 (the "State Court Action") from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, in which it is now pending. In support
of this Notice, Defendant states as follows:
Statement of Removal
1.
On or about April 28, 2015, Plaintiff John Doe ("Plaintiff') filed the State Court
Action, naming KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PETER AC WORTH and VAN
DARKHOLME as defendants ("Complaint").
2.
On June 22, 2015, Defendant HOGAN KARL aka VAN DARKHOLME was
served with the Summons and Complaint in the State Court Action. A true and correct
conformed copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. A true and correct copy of the
Summons is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The Proof of Service of Summons is attached hereto
as Exhibit 3.
3.
On June 23, 2015, defendants, CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
erroneously sued as KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT,

LLC, erroneously sued as KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC;
ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC and PETER AC WORTH were served. The Proof of Service of
Summons regarding these defendants are collectively attached as Exhibit 4.
3.
This action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. 1332, and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) in that it is a civil action between citizens of different states
and foreign states, and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.
4.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is timely since it is filed
within thirty (30) days of the Defendants being served with the Complaint.
///
-2NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
Citizenship of the Parties

5.
Plaintiff alleges complete diversity from all Defendants.
6.
Defendants are informed and believe, and Plaintiff alleges, that Plaintiff John Doe
is a resident and citizen of the State of New York. Complaint, It 1.1

7.
The named defendants, all located in California, have complete diversity from
Plaintiff.
8.
Defendant CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC is allegedly "a Limited
Liability Company registered to do business in the State of California...CYBERNET maintains a

headquarters at 1800 Mission Street, San Francisco, California." Complaint, 112.
9.
Defendant CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC erroneously sued as
KINK.COM is allegedly "a corporation duly organized and existing under and by the virtue of
the state laws of the State of California...Defendant KINK.COM maintains a headquarters at
1800 Mission Street, San Francisco, California." Complaint, 3.
10.
Defendant KINK STUDIOS, LLC is allegedly "a corporation duly organized and
existing under and by the virtue of the state laws of the State of California...Defendant Kink
Studios maintains a headquarters at 1800 Mission Street, San Francisco, California." Complaint,
It 4.
11.
Defendant CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC erroneously sued as
KINKMEN.COM is allegedly "a corporation duly organized and existing under and by the virtue
of the state laws of the State of California...Defendant KINKMEN maintains a headquarters at
1800 Mission Street, San Francisco, California." Complaint, 115.
12.
Defendant ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC is allegedly "a corporation duly organized
and existing under and by the virtue of the state laws of the State of California.. .Defendant
ARMORY maintains a headquarters at 1800 Mission Street, San Francisco, California."
Complaint, 116.
On 6-30-15, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. All paragraph references herein are to
the original Complaint.
13.
Defendant PETER AC WORTH allegedly "works and resides in San Francisco,
California. Complaint, 1110.

14.
Defendant HOGAN KARL aka VAN DARKHOLME allegedly "at all relevant
times referenced herein.. .worked and resided in San Francisco, California. Complaint, 13.2
Amount in Controversy
15.
Plaintiff's original Complaint alleges causes of action against Defendants for 1)
Negligence, 2) Negligence Per Se, 3) Intentional/Fraudulent Misrepresentation, 4) Civil

Conspiracy to Commit Intentional/Fraudulent Misrepresentation, 5) Breach of Implied Covenant
of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, 6) Negligent Supervision, 7) Negligent Hiring and/or Retention
and 8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.3
16.
It is facially apparent from the Complaint and the nature of Plaintiff's claims
against Defendant therein, that the claims exceed $75,000. See, e.g. Luckett v. Delta Airlines,
Inc., 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding the jurisdictional amount satisfied based on a tort
theory of recovery in which plaintiff alleged damages for property, travel expenses, an
emergency ambulance trip, a six day stay in the hospital, pain and suffering, humiliation, and her
temporary inability to do housework). Here, Plaintiff alleges tort damages and punitive damages
for emotional distress and battery. While these amounts cannot be directly quantified from the
Complaint, such alleged damages in a personal injury action typically far exceed the
jurisdictional amount of $75,000. Complaint, If 68, Prayer for Relief, 4.
17.
Plaintiff specifically alleges that he was a model hired by the Defendants
(Complaint, 27), and from November 7, 2011 to May 3, 2013, he performed for Defendants in
pornographic videos. (Complaint, 23). On June 3, 2013, Plaintiff learned that he was HIV
positive. (Complaint, If 49) Plaintiff alleges he contracted HIV at a May 3, 2013 video shoot.
(Complaint,T51).
In the original Complaint, Plaintiff named defendant Van Darkholme. Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint amends this party's name to "Hogan Karl aka Van Darkholme."
3 Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint adds two causes of action, Premises Liability and Battery.
18.
Plaintiff alleges lals a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct
of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of physical harm when he contracted
HIV while performing at the May 3, 2013 shoot. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur
significant costs for medical treatment, medications, and all other related expenses for the
treatment of his contracted illness." Complaint, 11158.
19.
Plaintiff alleges "[als a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct
of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to,
past and future lost earnings and medical and/or psychological treatment expenses..."
Complaint, 159.
20.
Plaintiff alleges "[a]s a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
conduct of said Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional
distress including, but not limited to, great depression and embarrassment amongst members of
the community and family, he has also suffered severe emotional distress, including, but not
limited to, anxiety, fear, humiliation, mental anguish, depression, and post-traumatic stress
disorder, all to his general damage... Complaint, 160.
21.
Plaintiff alleges punitive damages. Complaint, at Prayer for Relief
22.
Based on the allegations set forth in the Complaint, it is apparent that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. ("This Court has held that 'once
a defendant is able to show that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount,
removal is proper, provided plaintiff has not shown that it is legally certain that his recovery will
not exceed the amount stated.") (citing De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1412 (5th
Cir.1995).
Removal Procedures
23.
Removal is properly made to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California because the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, where the State Court Action is currently pending, is within the Northern District of
California.
24.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has
jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1)-(4) because the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of intst and costs, and the action is between
citizens of different states, namely California and New York.
25.
A copy of this notice will be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of San Francisco, and Plaintiff, as required by 28 U.S.C. 1446(d).
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests removal of this action from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.
DEFENDANTS DEMAND JURY TRIAL
DATED: July 22, 2015

By: A/ Michael T. Kennick
Michael T. Kennick, Esq.
KENNICK AND ASSOCIATES
Attorneys for Defendants, CYBERNET
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as
KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC;
CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
erroneously sued as KINKMEN.COM;
CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC;
ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PETER AC WORTH;
HOGAN KARL aka VAN DARKHOLME
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 110 E. Wilshire Ave., Suite 401,
Fullerton, California, 92832.
On 7-22-15, I served the foregoing document described as
NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
on the interested parties in this action:
[X]
By placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the
attached service list;
[X]
VIA U.S. MAIL: The envelopes were sealed and mailed with postage thereon, fully
prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the envelope was deposited with the
United States Postal Service in Fullerton, California in the ordinary course of business;
and there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed. I am aware
that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date
or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in this
declaration.
[X] VIA EMAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

11
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION [CM/ECF SYSTEM]: Based on the United

States District Court's General Order No. 08-02, I caused the above-referenced
documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed on the attached service
list by way of the Court's CM/ECF System (Case Management/Electronic Case Filing
System). I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic
message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
I]
VIA LEXISNEXIS FILE & SERVE (on all parties listed on the service list with
LexisNexis in compliance with court's order)
[X]
(FEDERAL): I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
at
America that the above information is true and correct. Executed on 1Fullerton, California.
/s/ JOHN C. ELLIS

JOHN C. ELLIS
SERVICE LIST
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE

Sandra Ribera Speed
RIBERA LAW FIRM
157 West Portal Avenue, Suite 2
San Francisco, CA 94127
Sandra Ribera <sribera@riberalaw.com>
Co-Counsellor DEFENDANTS CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as
KINK COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously
sued as KINKME1V.COM; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS,
LLC; PETER ACWORTH; HOGAN KARL aka VAN DARKHOLME
Karen Tynan, Attorney At Law
1083 Vine Street, #201
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Karen Tynan <dktynan@comcast.net>
Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1-1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 55
EXHIBIT 1

CM-010
FOR COURT USE ONLY
wid address):
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nfl7E
Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq. (236769)

Ribera Law Firm, A Professional Corp_roation
157 West Portal Avenue Smite
Sall EMCiSCO, California 94127

415-842-0321
FAX NO.:
415-576-1600
TELEPHONE NO.: joHN DoE

ATTORNEY FOR Name):
yILED
" co
San Francis
c ulster treet
'n'm,stverior cow
SUPERIOR COURT OF CargrAptINTY Of

STREET ADDRESS:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZIP CODE:

BRANCH NAME:
APR
San Francisco 94102

Civic Center Courthouse - Civil
?Intl
C EI-11( t- ri
QURT
CASE NAME:
John Doe v. Kink.corn, et al.

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
1-*0 I
FT Limited
Unlimited
(Amount
(Amount
demanded is
demanded
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less)
`E NUMBER.
Complex Case Designation

71 Counter U Joinder
Filed with first appearance by defendant
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
d ti 5 - 5 4 5 5 4 0
JUDGE:
SEPT:
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort
Auto (22)
Uninsured motorist (46)
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort
Contract
ED Breach of contract/warranty (06)
Rule 3.740 collections (09)
Other collections (09)
1:::1 Insurance coverage (18)

= Other contract (37)
RealProperty
Eminent domain/inverse
condemnation (14)
Other PI/PD/WD (23)
El Wrongful eviction (33)
Non-PUPDAND (Other) Tort
Other real property (26)
Business tort/unfair business practice (07)
Unlawful
Detainer
Civil rights (08)
IT
C
ommercial
(31)
Defamation (13)
IT
71
Asbestos (04)
Product liability (24)
Medical malpractice (45)
ED
El Residential (32)
[kr Fraud (16)
IT
1
El
Intellectual property (19)

Professional negligence (25)
Other non-PI/PD/WD tort (35)
Employment
I Wrongful termination (36)
I
I 1
Other employment (15)
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation

(Cal. Rules of Court rules 3.400-3.403)
1:=1
Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
El Construction defect (10)

ED Mass tort (40)
El Securities litigation (28)
71Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
1 I
Insurance coverage claims arising from the

above listed provisionally complex case
types (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
I 1Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
L] RICO (27)
Li
El Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
Fl
C] Partnership and corporate governance (21)

Other petition (not &fleeted above) (43)
Dregs (38)
Judicial Review
I= Asset forfeiture (05)
Petition re: arbitration award (11)
IT
Writ of mandate (02)

Other judicial review (39)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
I 1
2. This case Li is k..I is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
d. El Large number of witnesses
Large number of separately represented parties
a.U
Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
I Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e.
b.
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve
In other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
f. 1::1 Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
c.1 1 Substantial amount of documentary evidence
3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.I 4e monetary b4-1 nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief C. ee Ipunitive
Negligence; Negligence Per Se; intenfional/Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Civil Conspiracy to Commit
4. Number of causes of action (specif y): 8:
Intentional/Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
6. This case I (is riis not a class action sue.
Neglig t Stvervision; N ligent Hiring andio Retention; IIED
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You se form CM-01)
Date. April 28, 2015
Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq.

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper hied in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases 'filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) 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 3.400 at 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 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onry.
Fowl Adopted for Mandatoiy Use
Judicial Council of California
CM-010 pan My L 20077
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
P *1 of2
Cal. Rules of Court, alas 230. 3.220, 3400-3.403, 3.740;
Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10
traw.coissinfo.cagov
SUitiff
FOR COURT USE ONLY

(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
VgrebefrtrRC&IOS, LLC; KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PMER
ACWORTH; VAN DARICHOLME and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
JOHN DOE
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.goviselfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk fora fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifonda.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.govIselfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
tAitlS01 Lo han demandado. Si no respande denim de 30 dies, to code puede decidir en su contra sin escuthersu versilm. Lea la informacin a
continuer:Om
Ilene 30 WAS DE CALENDAR10 despus de qua to entreguen esta crlacin y papeles regales pare presenter iota respuesta por escrito en esta
code y hacer que se entregue une copla at demandante. Una carte o una !remade telefanica no to protegerr. Su nespuesta por matte time que ester
en forrnato legal correct si doses que procesen su caso en Is code. Es posible que hays un foram/ado que Listed pueda user pare su respuesta.
Puede &manlier safes formularies de Is code y mas informacin en at Centro de Ayuda de las Cartes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en Is
biblioteca de /eyes de su sanded a en Is carte que le quede reds coma. Si no puede pagan I a cuota de presentecin, pida al secreted de la code
quo le de un formulario de exencin de pogo de cuota.s. Si no presents su respuesta a germ" puede perder et case par incumplimiento yla code le
pock* guitar su sue/do, dinem y bienes sin Ines advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legates. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogado inmediatamente. S/no cameo a un abogado, puerto Asmara un servicia de
remision a abogados. Si no puede pagers un abogado, es pasible que cumpla con los requisites pare obtener servicios legates gratukos de un
programs de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrarestos grupos sin lines do lucre one! sdib web de California Legal Services,
(www.tawhelpcallfornia.org), one! Centro de Ayucia de las Codes de California. (www.sucorte.ce.gov) o pc:Vendee& en contact con la carte oat
core& de abogados locales. AMID: Parley. Is Cade tiene derecho a nsclarner las cuotas y las castes exentos por knpcmer urt gravamen sabre
cualquier nacuperacin de $10,000 ads de valor roe/bide rnediante un acuerdo a una concesion de arbitraje en un cam de derecho civil. Time que
pagers! gravamen de la code antes de que Is code merle desechar at caso.
The name and address of the court is:

(EI nombre y
*Mr 1 5 ir 5 4 4
direccin de Is cone es):
San Francisco Superior Court

400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, Is direccion y et nmero ge telfono de( abogado del demandente, ode! demandante quo no hone abogado es):
415-576-1600
Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq., Ribera Law Firm, APC, 157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, tA 94127
APR
DATE:
MEREDn-H
CLERK OF THE COURT Clerk, by
(Fecha)
(Secretarto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form P05-010).)
(Para prueba de entrega de taste citatiOn use el formutario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
IRT OF
1. = as an individual defendant.
2. I I as the person sued under the fictitious name of (spectr):
28 2015'
GRIER
I 1
on behalf of (specify):
under:
4. I
FOIV1 Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Coma of Ca/Worlds

SUM-100 [Rev. July1. 2009]
CCP 416.10 (corporation)

ni CCP 416.60 (minor)
CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
f I CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) ni CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
other (specify):
1 by personal delivery on (date):
EJ
SUMMONS
Pape loft
Coda of Civil Procedure 55 412.20, 488
www.couretto.ce.gov
1
2
3
4
5
Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq. (SBN 236769)

RIBERA LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
157 West Portal Avenue, Suite 2
Tel: (415) 576-1600 Fax: (415) 842-0321
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JOHN DOE
FI LED
sapp,
anatcocoumvsu0e.r
APR 242015
CLERK F
SUPERIOR COURT OF flik, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
) Case G C - 1 5 5 4 5 5 4 0
JOHN DOE,
12
13
Plaintiff,
V.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
OURT
titY
11
colla
KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC;

KINK1VIEN.COM; CYBERNET
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY
STUDIOS, LLC; PETER ACWORTH; VAN
DARKHOLME and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive,
Defendants.
)
) 1. NEGLIGENCE,
) 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE,
) 3. INTENTIONAL/FRAUDULENT
) MISREPRESENTATION,
) 4. CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
) INTENTIONAL/FRAUDULENT
) MISREPRESENTATION,
) 5. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT
) OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
) DEALING,
) 6. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION,
) 7. NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR
) RETENTION, and
) 8. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
)
). Prayer for Punitive Damages
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
)
)
)
)
)
27
28
CASE NO,:
JOHN DOE v. KINK.COM, 0 - COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff JOHN DOE hereby requests a trial by jury of all issues in this matter.
2 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JOHN DOE and alleges as follows:

3
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff JOHN DOE (hereinafter "JOHN DOE" or "Plaintiff') is a resident and
citizen of the State of New York where he is a student. At all relevant times contained herein,
Plaintiff worked for Defendants, and each of them, in San Francisco, California.
2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC (hereinafter
"CYBERNET'") is a Limited Liability Corporation registered to do business in the State of
California, and is authorized to transact and is transacting business in the internet pornography
10
and the pornographic film industry in the State of California. Defendant CYBERNET maintains
11
a headquarters at 1800 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA. The agent for service of process is
12 Defendant PETER ACWORTH.

13
3. Defendant KINK.COM is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by
14
virtue of the laws of the State of California and is authorized to transact and is transacting
15
business in the internet pornography and the pornographic film industry in the State of
16
California. Defendant KINK.COM maintains a headquarters at 1800 Mission Street, San
17 Francisco, California. The agent for service of process is Defendant PETER AC WORTH.
18
4. Defendant KINK STUDIOS, LLC (hereinafter "KINK STUDIOS"); is a corporation
19
duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and is
20
authorized to transact and is transacting business in the internet pornography and the
21
pornographic Elm industry in the State of California. Defendant KINK STUDIOS maintains a
headquarters at 1800 Mission Street, San Francisco, California. The agent for service of process
22
23 is Defendant PETER AC WORTH.
24
5. Defendant KINKMEN.COM (hereinafter "KINKMEN") is a corporation duly
25
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and is
26
authorized to transact and is transacting business in the internet pornography and the
27
pornographic film industry in the State of California. Defendant KINK1MEN maintains a
28
2
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINK COM, et st.- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
is Defendant PETER ACWORTH.

6.
Defendant ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC (hereinafter "ARMORY") is a corporation
duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and is
authorized to transact and is transacting business in the internet pornography and the '
pornographic film industry in the State of California. Defendant ARMORY maintains a
is Defendant PETER AC WORTH.
8
9
10
7.
Defendants CYBERNET, KINK-COM, KINK STUDIOS, lNKMEN, and
ARMORY, will be referred to collectively as "KINK Defendants," unless otherwise noted.

8.
KINK Defendants, and each of them, are headquartered in the San Francisco Armory
11
at 1800 Mission Street in San Francisco, California. The Armozy building is a 200,000 square.
12
foot 1914 reproduction of a Moorish Castle that served as a National Guard Armory and Arsenal
13
until the 1970s. In 2006, the Armory was purchased by Defendant PETER AC WORTH for the
14
purposes of transacting business in the internet pornography and pornographic film industries.
15
16
17
18
9.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant PETER ACWORTH
(hereinafter "ACWORTH") is the owner of KINK Defendants and each of them.

10. Upon information and belief, AC WORTH works and resides in San Francisco,
California.
19
11. KINK.COM, found at http://www.kink.com, is a website which hosts and provides
20
links to approximately thirty (30) additional pornographic websites providing sexually explicit
21
adult photographs, video and other graphic sexual content.
22
12. Defendant KINK.COM comprises a network of fetish and BDSM (bondage,
23
discipline, sadism, masochism) sites, including over two dozen premium subscription sites, a fr
24
documentary news site, an interactive live cam site, and an on-demand site that allows customers
25
to purchase every pornographic shoot ever published by the company on an individual basis.
26
13. Defendant KINKMEN.COM was launched in 2008 with the release of
27
BoundGods.com, a gay bandage site. At all relevant times referenced herein, well-known
28
pornographic actor and director, Defendant VAN DARKHOLME (hereinafter
3
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINK.COM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
"DARKHOLME"), directed all KJNICMEN.COM programming. KINKIvIEN is comprised of
five sites, including NakedKombatcom, a hardcore wrestling site, and MenOnEdge.COM, a
BDSM edging site.
14. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times referenced herein, DARKHOLME
worked and resided in San Francisco, California. DARKHOLME has worked and continues to
be employed by the KINK Defendants and Defendant ACWORTH as an adult pornographic film
director.
15. All Defendants will be referred to collectively as "Defendants."
16. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 50, whether individual, corporate,
10
government, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants
11
by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and
12
capacities when ascertained.
13
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants were the
14
agent, servant, employee and representative of each of the other Defendants. In performing the
15
acts herein alleged, Defendants were acting within the course and scope of such agency or
16
employment, and with full knowledge, permission, authorization, ratification, active assistance
17
and encouragement, and/or consent, express or implied, of each of the other Defendants. All
18
actions of the Defendants alleged in the causes of action into which this paragraph is
19
incorporated by reference were ratified and approved by the officers or managing agents or
20
member of every other defendant.
21
STATEMENT OF FACTS
22
18. Plaintiff began working for the KINK Defendants in 2011. Plaintiff's talent agent was
23
contacted by a representative at KINK.COM about his potential to perform sex acts in
24
pornographic videos produced specifically for intemet broadcasts.
25
26
27
28
19. Plaintiff was excited to have the opportunity to work with KINIC.COM, one of the
largest and most successful companies in the pornographic film industry.
20. KINK.COM's website includes claims that KINK.COM has "one of the best
reputations" in the adult pornographic film industry for "respectful and fair treatment of models,'
4
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINICCOM et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and that the company provides "clean, comfortable working conditions and an honest and
approachable crew." KINK.COM vows to "ensure that models fully understand their rights and
feel empowered to stop or alter a scene at any time."

21. Further, KINK.COM "ask(s) all directors to follow a strict set of shooting rules so
4
5
that all of our content conforms with our company values; we treat our models as professionals
and compensate them generously for their talent"

22. Plaintiff was reassured that working for KINK.COM was a wise, safe decision, and
he was eager to advance his career.
23. From November?, 2011 to May 3, 2013, JOHN DOE performed for Defendants, and
each of them, in pornographic videos.
10
11
24. All communications regarding JOHN DOE's work in Defendant KINK.COM's
12
videos originated from KINK.COM electronic mail addresses. Most of the communications had
13
KINKMEN.COM and "The Armory" in the signature portion. JOHN DOE's contract for work
14
with KINK.COM lists CYBERNET as the "Producer" and many of the contract pages refer to
15
KINK.COM.
25. At a typical intemet video shoot in which JOHN DOE performed for KINK
16
17
Defendants, there were numerous people on set, including the director, one or two camera
18
operators, one or more prciduction assistants, and several other workers, who were employed by
19
one or more KINK Defendants.

26. Also at a typical interne video shoot, there were one or two staff members of KINK
20
Defendants present and dedicated to management of the event.
21
27. At a typical intemet video shoot, JOHN DOE would be one of several other models
22
23
and actors hired by KINK Defendants. Usually, there would be one main "dom" or actor playin
24
the dominant role in the sexual act(s); one "co-doni," also playing a dominant role in the sexual
25
act(s); JOHN DOE, who usually performed as the "submissive" or "sub;" and four to five
26
"extras" or additional models who would participate in the video shoot.

28. JOHN DOE was aware that despite KINK Defendants' expressed dedication to
27
sexually transmitted disease (STD) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing of all
28
CASE NO.:
models, KINK Defendants were only requiring the heterosexual models to have STD and HIV
2
testing panels performed before each and every video shoot The homosexual models were not
required to be tested before every shoot. Moreover, if an STD or HIV was transmitted during a
heterosexual shoot, production of the shoot halts until everyone is tested and the source of the
infection is confirmed. Such is not the case with homosexual shoots.
29, During the time Plaintiff worked for the KINK Defendants as a model, he was only
asked once to submit his test results to KINK Defendants and that was before a heterosexual
filming. For all of the homosexual shoots he did, Plaintiff was never once asked by KINK
Defendants to submit his HIV/STD test results.
10
30. Further, KINK Defendants endangered all models at intemet video shoots with the
11
dangerous practice of inviting (non-tested) members of the general public to participate in sexual
12
acts during filming. KINK Defendants would regularly issue a mass electronic mail invitation to
13
the general public sometime in advance of the filming date, inviting them to participate. KINK
14
models were placed at significant risk for exposure and infection of STDs and HIV through
15
contact with these untested, unidentified members of the general public. KINK.COM continued
16
this business practice in direct violation of California law, as set forth herein, and KINIC.COM's
17
own stated principles of strict adherence to the safety and well-being of KlNK.COM employees
18
and models. KINK.COM regularly and repeatedly placed the health and safety of its models and
19
employees at serious risk.
20
31. During the years JOHN DOE worked for KINK Defendants, condom usage by the
21
actors and models was not required (unless explicitly specified), but could be requested. The
22
models were told they had the right to request a condom to be worn at any time, and that this
23
request would be honored without question.
24
32. On November 8, 2011, at Plaintiffs first filming with Defendants, Plaintiff observed
25
another model being given an injection of a prescription sexual performance-enhancing drug into
26
his penis. The medication was provided by Defendants to the performers on the shoot without a
27
prescription even through it was prescription medication. Upon witnessing this, Plaintiff JOHN
28
DOE requested to Defendants that he not be required to perform oral sex on the performer who
6
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINK.COM, et iL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
had been injected with .the medication. Plaintiff's request was denied. Plaintiff then exercised
2
his right to request that a condom be worn by the performer who had received the injection.
Plaintiffs request was again denied by Defendants. Plaintiff next requested that he be allowed
perform oral sex on the performer away from the location of where the performer had an open
wound as a result of the injection. Plaintiffs request was again explicitly denied by Defendants
putting JOHN DOE's health and safety in serious jeopardy and violating KINK Defendants
stated policies. Defendants conveyed to Plaintiff that if he pushed the condom-issue, he would b
out of a job. Plaintiff; being a student who wanted to earn some quick money so that he could
focus on his studies, kept his mouth shut following this incident.
10
33. On another occasion, Plaintiff was on one of Defendants' shoots where his penis had
11
been tied with twine. The twine cut Plaintiff's penis and caused it to bleed while filming.
12
Defendants took a cloth and wiped the blood. When Plaintiff inquired whether it was safe to
13
continue, Defendants replied that it was fine.
14
34. On January 10,2013, Plaintiff JOHN DOE was hired by the KINK.COM Defendants
15
and ACWORTH to perform sex acts in a pornographic video under the direction of Defendant
16
DARKHOLME.
17
35. During the January 10,2013 video shoot, a non-sterile object was inserted into JOHN
18
DOE's urethra against his express objection and placing him at significant risk of infection_
19
36. ICINK.COM claims to uphold a strict policy that models are entitled to personally
20
sanitize any items that are used on them. Before the non-sterile object was inserted into JOHN
21
DOE's urethra, he requested it be sterilized. Director DARKHOME expressly denied Plaintiffs
22
request.
23
37. Defendant DARKHOLME not only placed Plaintiff s health at significant risk, he
24
violated.KJNK Defendants' filming rules specifically applicable to Directors, stating in part "It is
25
your [the director's] responsibility to ensure the safety of the model on set. It is your
26
responsibility to ensure the shooting rules are adhered to."
27
38. After Plaintiff JOHN DOE's request for sterilization was expressly denied by
28
Defendant DARKHOLME, Plaintiff felt pressured to continue to perform or he could lose his
7
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINIC.COM, et al COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
job.
39. On February 20,2013, SF Weekly published a front page article titled "Gag Order: Sex
Workers Allege Mistreatment at Kink.com." In the article, author Kate Conger outlines
ACWORTH's recent arrest for cocaine possession, stating "many were surprised by the misstep
from a man who's built his empire on a strict code of ethical behavior and transparency..." Ms.
Conger continues:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
"However, even as Kink flourishes it's nearly doubled the

number of sites it operates since moving into the Armory doubts
about its ethical standards linger. The Company attracted unwanted
attention last summer when it abruptly switched its cam girls' pay
rate and sparked a debate about its commitment to models' rights.
Now, two former models allege they were denied workers'
compensation when injured on Kink sets, one of whom further
states she was coerced into a performance that left her with longstanding injuries and was offered money in exchange for keeping
quiet about those injuries. Other workers claim to have been
terminated...when they questioned Kink's business practices,
including the use of an erectile dysfunction drug called Trimix.
17
The potential legal quandaries revealed by former Kink models

challenge Acworth's ethical claims, and this isn't the first time
he's been called out for going against his models' rights and
shooting rules."
18
40. In detailing a lawsuit filed by Ms. Holloway, a former "cam girl" model, against
16
19 KINK.COM, Ms. Conger elaborated in SF Weekly, "Eden Alexander, a model who has
20
performed for Kink's cam site as well as other porn sites and did not participate in the lawsuit,
21
claims Holloway's firing created a culture of fear in the cam department. She says models
22
became afraid that voicing concerns meant risking their jobs. 'You're in a position where if you
23
don't follow along, you're going to lose shoots,' she explains."
24
41. On March 26,2013, Plaintiff was emailed by Mike Scott from KINK.COM
25
requesting that he take part in a May 3, 2013 video shoot. The email explicitly stated the
26
following, "This is a condom and barrier protection required shoot."
27
42. In April of 2013, JOHN DOE was contacted by KINK.COM's Talent Coordinator
28 Bobby Sanchez about performing in BoundInPublic.com's May 3, 2013 video shoot. JOHN
8
CASE NO.;
DOE agreed to appear for the shoot and KINK.COM provided paid airfare for him to travel to
and from San Francisco.

43. On May 3, 2013, JOHN DOE appeared for the Bound in Public shoot at The Armory
3
4
in San Francisco, California.

44. The May 3, 2013 video shoot (or "May 3 shoot") was directed by Defendant
DARKHOLME. JOHN DOE was to act as the "bottom," or submissive actor in BDSM sexual
7
activities (bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, sadism/masochism). The "bottom" is the
star and primary focus of a video shoot. The May 3 shoot was a special, annual public event
called the "Rubber Party," in reference to the liquid latex which was poured over the models'
10
bodies. The shoot would start at a much later time than an average shoot typical shoots are
11
filmed in the afternoon, but the May 3 shoot was to run from 11:00 pm to 3:00 am and there was
12
alcohol on set. A much larger than average number of "guests" or members of the public were in
13
attendance to partake in the shoot. While there were seven models who performed at the May 3
14
shoot, there were on average between 30-40 members of the public who also participated in the
15
shoot.
16
45. During the May 3 shoot, several of the guests, who were members of the public, were
17
allowed to participate in the sexual activities with the models. In direct contradiction to KINK
18
Defendants' stated policies and in violation of California Code of Regulations, these members of
19
the public are not tested for STDs or HIV prior to their involvement in filming. KINK
20
Defendants' models are encouraged to interact with members of the public, and get paid extra to
21
do so. Each interaction a model has with a member of the public will earn him another $100.00
22
in his total compensation. As models typically earn between $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 per video
23
shoot, they can significantly increase their income through these interactions with the public.
24
46. At the May 3 shoot, Plaintiff JOHN DOE was forced by Defendants to sexually
interact with almost every member of the public. While Plaintiff was physically restrained and
25
26 blindfolded, Defendant DARKHOLME is clearly seen on video footage forcefully pushing
Plaintiff's head and mouth into the penises of dozens of men to perform oral sex on them. None
27
28 of these performers were wearing a condom nor were any bathers used. Defendant
9
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINICCOM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
DARHOLME was so powerfully thrusting Plaintiff's head that Plaintiff is heard making gagging
2
3
sounds at several points during the shoot.

47. During the May 3 shoot, the inside of Plaintiff's mouth sustained a cut. Plaintiff took
a sip of water and noticed some blood in his mouth. Plaintiff did not mention this to Defendant
DARICHOLME. Since Plaintiff's requests of no oral sex and condom usage had been denied in
the past by Defendants, Plaintiff knew that similar requests would be denied on this occasion.
7 Plaintiff also knew from his previous experiences that Defendant DARKHOLME did not grant
8
the requests of the models, including Plaintiff's own previous request for a condom to be worn
on the penis of another model. Plaintiff also did not want to risk losing his job.
10
48. Plaintiff JOHN DOE returned to New York after the May 3 shoot. After
11
approximately fifteen days, he began to experience fever, chills, sweats, tiredness and malaise.
12
He visited the doctor May 22,2013, who administered three different types of HIV tests.
13
14
15
49. On June 3, 2013, Plaintiff JOHN DOE was devastated to learn that he was HIV
positive. He received confirmatory test results on June 10, 2013.
50. On his walk home from his initial diagnosis, JOHN DOE strongly considered
16 jumping off New York City's Washington Bridge to commit suicide. He quickly spiraled into a
17
deep depression.
51. Through a meticulous process of elimination and based on expert medical advice,
18
19 Plaintiff JOHN DOE determined he had contracted HIV at Defendants' May 3, 2013 shoot.
20
21
52. Plaintiff JOHN DOE contacted the KINK Defendants and notified them of his
diagnosis. He spoke with employees Jessie Lee and Bobbie Sanchez.
22
53. KINK Defendants failed to report Plaintiff JOHN DOE's diagnosis to the AIDS
23
Healthcare Foundation (AHE), Cal/OSHA, or the Free Speech Coalition (FSC). Had KINK
24
Defendants notified any of these entities, as they would have if it were a heterosexual shoot, a
moratorium on filming in the porn industry would have occurred, requiring all sex workers to be
25
26 tested for HIV before filming would resume.
27
28
54. Had KINK Defendants properly reported Plaintiff JOHN DOE's diagnosis to the
appropriate authorities, the source of JOHN DOE's HIV infection could have been located and
10
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINK.CONI, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
the further spread of the infection could have been prevented.

55. In the following months, beginning in August, four more performers in California
would be diagnosed with HIV. At least two of those workers have traced their infection back to
their work with KINK Defendants. In her last shoot while working for Kink Defendants,
5 Cameron Bay was directed to continue to perform sexual acts on a male model even though there
6
7
was blood and a visible cut on the model's penis.

56. On September 16, 2013, after seeing fellow sex worker Cameron Bay's
announcement through the AHF that she was diagnosed with HIV, JOHN DOE also contacted
the AHF. Mark McGrath of the AHF assisted JOHN DOE in compiling a complaint to file with
10 the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA).

11
12
57. On September 18, 2013, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation held a press conference an
announced that several pornographic video actors received positive HIV tests, including three
13 who had worked for KINK Defendants.

14
58. Among those performers that worked for KINK Defendants who tested positive for
15
HIV was Patrick Stone, who tested positive on September 10,2013. Stone told SF Weekly that
16
KINK Defendants had contacted him to perform in a video shoot even after he had notified them
17
of his HIV positive status.

59. On January 30,2014 the State of California Division of Occupational Safety and
18
19
Health, Cal/OSHA High Hazard Compliance Unit issued an eighteen-page Citation and
20
Notification of Penalty to KINK Defendants imposing a fine of $78,710.
21
60. The Citation and Notification of Penalty asserted multiple violations of Title 8 of the
22
California Code of Regulations (CCR), including violations classified as "General,"
23
"Regulatory," and "Serious" by KINK Defendants:
24
25
a. Unauthorized use of flexible cords and cables not specifically permitted by

CCR Section 2500.7 (Citation I Item 1 General);
26
b. Failing to maintain records of safety training given to employees required by
27
Title 8 CCR 3203(b)(2) and subsection (a)(7) (Citation 1 Item 2 Regulatory
28
c. Failing to provide adequate fast-aid materials to employees on every job, in
11
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. ICINIC.COM, et at COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
accordance with CCR 3400(c) (Citation 1 Item 3 General);

d. Failing to require employees to undergo the Hepatitis B vaccination or, if they
decline, sign a statement mandated by CCR 5191(f)(2XD) Appendix A
(Citation 1 Item 4 Regulatory);
e. Failing to keep Cal/OSHA injury and illness records and Cal/OSHA Form 301
Injury and Illness Incident Reports in accordance with CCR 14300.01(a)(2)
f. Failing to provide records demanded by an authorized government

representative within four (4) business hours, according to CCR 14300.40(a)
10
11

g. Failing to establish, implement and maintain an effective Injury and Illness
12
Prevention Program (11 P) which meets the standards of CCR 3203(a) for
13
employees exposed to workplace hazards including, but not limited to,
14
electrical ha7ards and sexually transmitted illnesses in the course of producing
15
adult videos (Citation 1 Item 7 General);
16
h. Failing to record the steps taken to implement and maintain the Injury and
17
Illness Prevention Program in accordance with CCR 3203(b)(1) (Citation 1
18
Item 8 Regulatory);
19
Failing to establish, implement and maintain an effective Exposure Control
20
Plan which is designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure in
21
accordance with CCR 5193(c)(1), and which is also consistent with Section
22
3203. "At and prior to the time of the Cal/OSHA inspection, CYBERNET had
23
not established and implemented an effective exposure control plan to protect
24
employees who had reasonable anticipated contacted with blood or Other
25
Potentially Infectious Materials (OPIM) from the hazards of bloodbome
26
pathogens CYBERNET had not developed and implemented procedures or
27
schedule for: (d) methods of compliance, including engineering controls and
28
work practices; (f) hepatitis B vaccination and post-exposure evaluation and
12
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE,. ION1C.COM, et aL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
follow-up; and(h) recordkeeping." (Citation 2 Item 1 Serious);
1
2
j.
Failing to observe universal precautions to prevent contact with blood or Other
Potentially Infectious Materials (OPIM) in accordance with CCR 5193(d)(1).
"On or before 8/9/13, employees of CYBERNET who had reasonably
anticipated contacted with blood or OPIM were exposed to the hazards of
bloodbome pathogens. CYBERNET did not observe Universal Precautions
which exposed employees to blood and OPIM dining production activities
associated with adult content videos." (Citation 3 Item 1 Serious);
k. Failing to satisfy the general requirements of Engineering and Work Practice
10
Controls in accordance with CCR 5193(d)(2). "On or before 8/9/13, employees
11
of CYBERNET who had reasonably (sic) anticipated contacted (sic) with
12
blood or Other Potentially Infectious Materials (OPIM) were exposed to the
13
hazards of bloodbome pathogens. CYBERNET did not require the use of
14
engineering controls and work practice controls during production activities
15
associated with adult content videos to eliminate and/or minimize employee
16
exposure to blood and OPIM." (Citation 4 Item 1 Serious).
17
61. On February 4,2014, SF Weekly published an article titled "Bay Area Porn
18
Companies Slapped With Fines for Not Using Condoms," making specific reference to KINK
19
Defendants' fine of $78,710.00 by OSHA for workplace safety hazards. According to writer
20
Kate Conger, "The majority of the fines were for allowing performers to work without using
21
condoms... The fine is one of several that OSHA has issued.., and follows in the wake of
22
several HIV scares in the industry... Porn production was forced to halt industry-wide several
23
times last year, after performers tested positive for HW, including Cameron Bay, a performer
24
who worked at Kink shortly before her diagnosis."
25
26
27
28
62. The article further elaborates:

Although the complaints that sparked OSHA's investigations into
Kink.., are sealed to protect the identities of whistle-blowing
employees, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has publicly stated
that it filed complaints against both companies. Its complaint
13
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE,. KINICCOM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2
3
4
5
6
7
against Kink claims Bay may have contracted HIV on set "We
have reason to believe that on 7/31/13 adult film employees were
exposed to bloodbome pathogens and other potentially infectious
materials... An employee from this production named Cameron
Alexandria Adams (AKA Cameron Bay) tested positive for the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as early as 8/19/13... Ms.
Adams engaged in acts considered high-risk for the transmission of
HIV, including multiple sex partners and acts resulting in trauma
to vaginul, oral, and anal mucosa. Additionally, a large group
estimated at 10-12 individuals, including production staff, are
likely to have been exposed."
63. At the time, Defendant ACWORTH incorrectly and misleadingly claimed the
complaints which prompted the OSHA investigation were not made by actual people who worje
10
for KINK Defendants, "but by outside groups with a long history of opposition to adult film."
11
Mike Stabile, a spokesperson for KINK Defendants told SF Weekly, "The fines were not related
12
to a particular incident, but rather about our policy of leaving the choice to use a condom up to
13
the performer."
14
64. As exhibited by Plaintiff JOHN DOE's allegations above, the choice of whether to
15 use a condom while in the employment of KINK.COM is not left up to the performer. Although
16
KINK Defendants' policies represent that an actor or model can request a condom at any time
17
and one will be used, this policy has not been enforced. As evidenced above, Defendant JOHN
18
DOE attempted to exercise his right to request a condom and his request was wrongfully denied
19
resulting in serious risk to his health and contributing to the neglectful, unsafe, and illegal
20 environment at KINK Defendants.

21
65. Condom usage in the pornographic film industry has been a widely debated topic in
22 recent years. Condoms are now mandatory in Los Angeles County pornographic film
23
productions, which has resulted in a significant decrease in the filming of pornographic materials
24 in Los Angeles County. While California Health & Safety Codes do require condom usage
25
during filming within the entire state of California, the law does not require condom use to be
26
enforced in San Francisco. As a result, a porn production company can be cited and fined by the
27
State of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL/OSHA) for not requiring
28
condoms to be worn during performances on set, but it is not an actionable violation of
14
CASE NO.;
JOHN DOE v. IGNK.COM, et I. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
California statute. Pornographic film producers vehemently argue that condoms use should not
2
be required during filming, arguing that audiences find actors performing sex acts without
3 condoms much more exciting.

4
66. During the years Plaintiff was employed with the KINK.COM Defendants,
mandatory safety regulations were blatantly ignored, necessary precautionary measures to
protect the health of the models and studio staff were not taken, and homosexual models were
7 blatantly discriminated against by KINK Defendants, AC WORTH, and DARKHOLME.

67. Defendants have a documented history of failing to create, implement, and uphold
safety regulations to protect its models. Instead, Defendants promote unsafe and reckless sex
10
practices in order to increase membership and viewership of their online porn site. In so doing,
11 KINK Defendants, ACWORTH, and DARKHOLME, consciously disregarded the rights and
12
safety of Plaintiff and other models working for KINK Defendants by prioritizing corporate
13
profits over human lives.
14
68. Since Plaintiff JOHN DOE's HIV diagnosis, he has been suicidal and seriously
15
depressed. He is constantly bombarded by people intent to destroy him as a person, because they
16
view him as dangerous, or disgusting. He is stigmatized and afraid of being alone forever. He is
17
no longer able to socialize like a normally functioning member of society, and social situations
18
feel negative and isolating. Plaintiff feels like an outcast, disposable. He had been called a
19
disgusting person and told he should kill himself, to his face, simply because he has HIV.
20
Plaintiff faces constant discrimination clue to being HIV positive. He is unable to be intimate
21
with anyone before first giving them a health lesson on HIV, and even then, romantic partners
22
are afraid. Taking daily medication is a constant reminder to Plaintiff of his diagnosis and the
23
feelings he has related to that diagnosis.
24
69. There are now countries Plaintiff JOHN DOE will never be able to travel to because
25
they will not allow visitors diagnosed with HIV. There are now many jobs he will never be able
26
to hold, such as some occupations in the health care industry, due to the risk of accidental
27
transmission of HIV.
28
70. Plaintiff JOHN DOE lives in constant fear of what could happen if he was unable to
15
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE,. K1NKCOM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
receive his medication. He is terrified of losing his health insurance.

2
71. Plaintiff JOHN DOE was previously very healthy, and never needed to rely on
medications. Today, he must visit his ta-eating physician at least once every three months. He
must take three medications daily, Truvada and Prezista, which collectively cost between $2000
and $3000/mo, and Norvir, for $200/mo. He hates relying on medications and wanted to avoid
taking anything unnecessary. He worries the pharmacy will make a mistake with his
prescriptions or be unable to refill them and his health will suffer greatly as a result.
72. As a result of the medications, Plaintiff has developed gastrointestinal problems and
is now lactose intolerant. He must be careful to avoid taxing his liver or kidneys.
10
73. Plaintiff has lost hope for the future as a result of his diagnosis.
11
74. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore, alleges, that each of the Defendants
12
designated herein caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiff as herein alleged,
13
and are, therefore, responsible to Plaintiff for the damages herein requested.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
14
17
NEGLIGENCE
(against KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PETER ACWORTH; VAN
DARKIIOLME and DOES 1-50)
18
75. Plaintiff incorporates each and every paragraph of the Complaint as though fully set
15
16
19
20
forth in the cause of action.

76. Defendants had a duty to have a work place safety specialist at the May 3 shoot to
21
ensure adequate personal protective equipment was available at the shoot. Defendants had a duty
22
to inspect all performers for cuts, sores, and lesions. Defendants had a duty to have a
23
Bloodbome Pathogen Exposure Control Plan in order to assist in implementing and ensuring
24
compliance with the Cal OSHA standards for blood borne pathogens to protect employees and
25
contractors. Defendants had a duty to maintain appropriate health records of their performers,
26 including STD and HIV tests before shooting commenced. Defendant DARICHOLME had a duty
27
28
as director of the May 3 shoot to enforce the use of condoms at the shoot
TT. Defendants breached each and every duty referenced above, which was owed to
16
CASE NO.
JOHN DOE v. KINKCOM, et it COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
I
2
3
Plaintiff.
78. Defendants, by and through their managing agents, knew of and condoned the
behavior of Defendants. The acts complained of herein were adopted, approved, condoned
4 and/or taken by one or more managing agent of Defendants each of whom had the authority to
5.
make policy and/or to direct a substantial portion of its business.

79. Defendants breach of each of the above-referenced duties was a substantial cause of
Plaintiff's injuries.
80. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants, and
each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of physical harm when he contracted
10
HIV while performing at the May 3, 2013 shoot. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur
11
12
treatment of his contracted illness.
13
14
each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to, past and future lost
15
earnings and medical and/or psychological treatment expenses, all within the jurisdictional limits
16
of this court. The exact amount of said losses will be stated according to proof at trial.
17
18
82. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of said
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered mental and emotional distress including, but
19 not limited to, great derision and embarrassment amongst members of the community and
20
family, he has also suffered severe emotional distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, fear,
21
humiliation, mental anguish, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, all to his general
22
damage, in an amount to be stated according to proof at trial.
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE PER SE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PETER AC WORTH; VAN
DARKHOLME and DOES 1-50)
83. Plaintiff incorporates each and every paragraph of the complaint as though fully set
17
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KTNXCOM, et al COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
84. At the May 3 shoot, Defendants were required by California Code of Regulations
Title 8, Section 5193 to have performers use barrier protection including condoms, to protect
them during the production of adult films.
85. Defendants violated the following laws:
a. Failing to establish, implement and maintain an effective Exposure Control Plan
which is designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure in accordance
with California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193 (c)(I), and which is
also consistent with Section 3203. "At and prior to the time of the Cal/OSHA
10
inspection, CYBERNET had not established and implemented an effective
11
exposure control plan to protect employees who had reasonable anticipated
12
contacted with blood or Other Potentially Infectious Materials (OPIM) from the
13
ha7ards of bloodbome pathogens CYBERNET had not developed and
14
implemented procedures or schedule for: (d) methods of compliance, including
15
engineering controls and work practices; (1) hepatitis B vaccination and post-
16
exposure evaluation and follow-up; and(h) recordkeeping." (Citation 2 Item 1
17
Serious);
18
b. Failing to observe universal precautions to prevent contact with blood or Other
19
Potentially Infectious Materials (OPIM) in accordance with California Code of
20
Regulations Title 8, Section 5193 (d)(1). "On or before 8/9/13, employees of
21
CYBERNET who had reasonably anticipated contacted with blood or OPIM were
22
exposed to the hazards of bloodbome pathogens. CYBERNET did not observe
23
Universal Precautions which exposed employees to blood and OPIM during
24
production activities associated with adult content videos." (Citation 3 Item 1
25
Serious);
26
c. Failing to satisfy the general requirements of Engineering and Work Practice
27
Controls in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193
28
(d)(2). "On or before 8/9/13, employees of CYBERNET who had reasonably (sic)
18
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINICCOM, et A COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
anticipated contacted (sic) with blood or Other Potentially Infectious Materials

2
(OPEvI) were exposed to the hazards of bIoodborne pathogens. CYBERNET did
not require the use of engineering controls and work practice controls during
production activities associated with adult content videos to eliminate and/or
minimize employee exposure to blood and OPIM." (Citation 4 Item 1 Serious).
6
7
8
9
86. The Defendants violated the above-laws and breached the above-duties owed to
Plaintiff.
10
and/or taken by one or more managing agent of Defendants each of whom had the authority to
11
12
13
88. Defendants' violation of these laws and breach of duties to Plaintiff was a substantial
factor in causing damage to Plaintiff.
14
15
each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of physical harm when he contracted
16
HIV while performing at the May 3, 2013 shoot Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not limited to, great derision and embarrassment amongst members of the community and
26
27
28
19
CASE 140.:
JOHN DOE v. ICINIC.COM, et el. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL/FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
(against KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; KINKIVIEN.COM; CYBERNET
DARKHOLME AND DOES 1-50)
6
7
8
9

93. Defendants made the following representation to Plaintiff regarding the May 3 shoot:
"This is a condom and barrier protection required shoot."
94. Defendants' representation was false. At the May 3 shoot, Plaintiff JOHN DOE was
10
forced by Defendants to sexually interact with almost every member of the public. While
11
Plaintiff was physically restrained and blindfolded, Defendant DARKHOLME is clearly seen on
12
video footage forcefully pushing Plaintiff's head and mouth into the penises of dozens of men to
13
perform oral sex on them. None of these performers were wearing a condom nor were any
14
barriers used. Defendant DARHOLME was so powerfully thrusting Plaintiff's head that
15
Plaintiff is heard making gagging sounds at several points during the shoot.
16
95. Defendants knew that the representation to Plaintiff that the May 3 shoot was a
17
condom and bather required shoot was false when they made it; and/or Defendants made the
18
representation recklessly and without regard for its truth.
19
96. Defendants intended that Plaintiff rely on the above representation. In order to secure
20
Plaintiff for the part in the May 3 shoot, Defendants ema.iled Plaintiff on March 26, 2013
21
requesting that Plaintiff take part in a May 3, 2013 video shoot. The email explicitly stated the
22
following, "This is a condom and barrier protection required shoot."
23
97. In April of 2013, JOHN DOE was contacted by KINK.COM's Talent Coordinator
24
Bobby Sanchez about performing in BotmdlnPublic.com's May 3, 2013 video shoot. Prior to
25
booking the shoot, Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants' representation, "This is a condom
26
and barrier protection required shoot."
27
28
98. Plaintiff was harmed in that he contracted HIV on the May 3 shoot as a result of
condoms and/or barriers not being used.
20
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. IUNXCOM, et 111. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2 behavior of Defendants. The acts complained of herein were adopted, approved, condoned
4
5
6
7

100. Plaintiff' &reliance on Defendants' representation that the May 3 shoot was a condom
and barrier protectionrequired shoot was a substantial factor in causing his harm.
101. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants,
Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of physical harm when he contracted HIV while
performing at the May 3, 2013 shoot. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur significant
10
costs for medical treatment, medications, and all other related expenses for the treatment of his
11
contracted illness.
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
104.. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, and/or by
23
officers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives of Defendants and/or were
24
known to, aided, abetted, authorized by, ratified by and/or otherwise approved by Defendants
25
and/or by the officers, directors, managing agents, agents and/or representatives of Defendants.
26
The above acts of Defendants, and each of them, were despicable and committed knowingly,
27
willfully and maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy and oppress Plaintiff and
28
with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, health, and safety. KINK Defendants,
21
CASE NO.;
JOHN DOE v. K1NK.COM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
ACWORTH, and DARKHOLME, consciously disregarded the rights and safety of Plaintiff and
2
other models working for KINK Defendants by prioritizing corporate profits over human lives.
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in a sum sufficient to punish said defendants so
that such conduct will not take place again.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD

(against KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; KINICMEN.COM;
CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PETER
ACWORTH; VAN DARKHOLME and DOES 1-50)
6
7
10
11

106. Upon information and belief, PETER ACWORTH and KINK DEFENDANTS and
12
DOES 1-50 agreed with DEFENDANT VAND.ARKHOLME to make intentional
13
misrepresentations to Plaintiff, including but not limited to the following: That the May 3 shoot
14
would be a condom and barrier requited shoot.
15
16
17
107. All Defendants agreed to engage in a conspiracy to subject Plaintiff to the fraudulent
representations in order to induce Plaintiff to participate in Defendants' May 3 shoot.
108. All Defendants agreed to engage in a scheme, which was intended to violate
18
Plaintiffs rights. All Defendants knowingly and willfully agreed amongst themselves to subject
14
Plaintiff to the fraudulent representations in order to induce Plaintiff to participate in Defendants
20
May 3 shoot
21
109. All Defendants combined to inflict wrongs against and/or injury on Plaintiff as
22
described in this Complaint. All Defendants understood, accepted, and/or explicitly and/or
23
implicitly agreed to the general objectives of their scheme to subject Plaintiff to fraudulent
24
representations in order to induce Plaintiff to participate in Defendants' May 3 shoot.
25
110. All Defendants acquired, possessed, and maintained a general knowledge of the
26
conspiracy's objectives to inflict wrongs against and/or injury upon Plaintiff as described in this
27
Complaint.
28
22
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINKCOM, et aL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3
4
5
6

112. Defendants' conspiracy to commit these tortious acts on Plaintiff was a substantial
factor in causing damage and injury to Plaintiff as alleged herein.
7 Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of physical harm when he contracted HIV while
8
performing at the May 3,2013 shoot. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur significant
costs for medical treatment, medications, and all other related expenses for the treatment of MR
10
contracted illness..
11
12
13
14
of this court. The exact amount of said losses will he stated according to proof at trial.
15
16
18
family, he has also suffered severe emotionAl distress, including, but not limited to, anxiety, fear,
19
20
21
116. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, and/or by
22
23
24
25
26
willfully and maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy and oppress Plaintiff and
27
28 ACWORTH, and DARKHOLME, consciously disregarded the rights and safety of Plaintiff and
23
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINKCOM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Iftri it CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

(against KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; KINKMEN.COM;
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
118. Defendants, and each of them, entered into a contract with Plaintiff JOHN DOE on
May 3, 2013 (hereinafter "CONTRACT).

119. At the time of entering into the CONTRACT and at all relevant times, Plaintiff was
an actor and model in the adult entertainment industry.
14
120. Plaintiff fully performed all duties required of him under the CONTRACT.
15
121. In the CONTRACT there was an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. The
16
implied promise meant that each party would not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right
17
of the other party to receive benefits of the contract. This requires, among other things, that:
18
each party in the relationship must act with good faith toward the other concerning all matters
19
related to the CONTRACT; each party in the CONTRACT must act with fairness toward the
20
other concerning all matters related to the CONTRACT; and Defendants would comply with its
21
own representations, rules, policies, and procedures in dealing with Plaintiff:
22
23
24
25
26
122. Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the following
ways:
a. Defendants told Plaintiff that the May 3 shoot would be a condom and barrier
required shoot.
b. Defendants also violated California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193,
27
which required performers to use barrier protection including condoms, to protect
28
them during the production of adult films, including, but not limited to the May 3
24.
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINICCOAL et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
I
2
3
shoot involving Plaintiff

c. Defendants had a duty to have a work place safety specialist at the shoot to ensure
adequate personal protective equipment is available at the shoot.
d. Defendants had a duty to inspect all performers for cuts, sores, and lesions.
e. Defendants had a duty to have a Bloodbome Pathogen Exposure Control Plan in
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
order to protect their performers, including Plaintiff.

1. Defendants had a duty to maintain appropriate health records of their performers,
including STD and HIV tests before shooting commenced.
g. Defendant DARKHOLME had a duty as director of the May 3 shoot to enforce
the use of condoms at the shoot.
h. Defendants repeatedly refused to abide by their own policies when dealing with
Plaintiff.
13
123. Defendants unfairly interfered with Plaintiff's rights to receive the benefits of the
14
CONTRACT. As a result of Plaintiff becoming HIV positive, Plaintiff could no longer engage in
15
Defendants' shoots or other shoots in the porn industry.
16
124. Defendants' conduct was a failure to act fairly and in good faith.
17
18
20
21

22
Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of physical harm when he contracted HIV while
23
performing the CONTRACT on May 3, 2013. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur
24
25
26
127. Due to Plaintiffs diagnosis with HIV, he is no longer able to perform as an actor and
27
model. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants, and each
28
of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to, past and future lost earning
25
CASE NO.
JOHN DOE v. ICINK.COM, et td. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and medical and/or psychological treatment expenses, all within the jurisdictional limits of this
court. The exact amount of said losses will be stated according to proof at trial.
3
4
129. As a further, direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of
10
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been obliged to expend or incur liability for costs of
11
suit, attorneys' fees and related expenses in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but which will
12
be submitted at the time of trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
16
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
(against KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; ICINKMEN.COM;
17
14
15
18
19

131. Defendants ACWORTH and JUNK Defendants and/or Defendant DARKHOLME
20
owed Plaintiff a duty to provide reasonable supervision to their employees, agents, and/or
21
contractors, including but not limited to Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant
22
ACWORTH.
23
132. Defendants ACWORTH and KINK Defendants and/or Defendant DARKHOLME
24
had a duty to ensure that their employees, agents, and/or contractors, including but not limited to,
25
Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant ACWORTH, would properly execute their
26
functions, duties, and obligations in a lawful manner.
27
28
knew or should have known that Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors, including
26
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE,. KINKCOM, et
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES'
I but not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant ACWORTH, were unfit for their
2
3
4
positions and that this unfitness created a particular risk to others, including Plaintiff.
134. Defendants AC WORTH and KINK Defendants and/or Defendant DARKHOLME
failed to supervise and/or train Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors, including but
5 not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant ACWORTH, such that the following
6
laws, rules, regulations, and/or policies were violated:
a. The May 3, 2013 shoot was a condom and barrier required shoot, however,
neither condoms nor bathers were required or used with regard to oral sex;
b. California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193 was violated, which required
10
performers to use bather protection including condoms, to protect them during th
11
production of adult films, including, but not limited to the May 3 shoot involving
12
Plaintiff;
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
c. No work place safety specialist was at the May 3 shoot to ensure adequate
personal protective equipment is available at the shoot;
d. Performers, including Plaintiff, were not inspected for cuts, sores, and lesions
during the May 3 shoot;
e. No Bloodbome Pathogen Exposure Control Plan was in place in order to protect
their performers, including Plaintiff;
f. Appropriate health records were not maintained of Defendants' performers,
including STD and HIV tests before the May 3 shoot commenced;
21
g. Defendant DARKHOLME failed to enforce the use of condoms at the shoot; and
22
h. Defendants repeatedly refused to abide by their own policies when dealing with
23
24
Plaintiff.
135. By failing to carry out their duty of supervision relating to Defendants' employees,
agents, and/or contractors, including but not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or
25
26 Defendant AC WORTH, Defendants ACWORTH, KINK Defendants and/or Defendant
27 DARKHOLME breached their duty of care to Plaintiff.
28
27
CASE NO
JOHN DOE v. KINIC.COM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
condoned and approved the unlawful conduct of Defendants' employees, agents, and/or
2 contractors, including but not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant
3 ACWORTH. As a result, KINK Defendants negligently supervised Defendant DARKHOLME
4 and/or Defendant ACWORTH, and KINK Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors.
5 As a result, Defendants ACWORTH and DARKHOLME also negligently supervised
6
Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors. In failing to supervise Defendant
7 ACWORTH, Defendant DARKHOLME, and KINK Defendants' employees, agents, and/or

8 contractors, KINK DEFENDANTS, and Defendant ACWORTH, and Defendant DARKHOLME
9
10
11
did not act reasonably and breached their duty of care to Plaintiff as a result.
12 and/or taken by one cr more managing agent of Defendants each of whom had the authority to
13
14

138. Defendants' negligent supervision was a substantial factor in causing damage and
15
injury to Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of
16
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of physical harm when
17
he contracted HIV while performing at the May 3, 2013 shoot. Plaintiff has incurred and will
18
continue to incur significant costs for medical treatment, medications, and all other related
19
expenses for the treatment of his contracted illness.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. xtNx.com, et al COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION

(against KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; KlNKMEN.COM;
3
4
7
8
9
10
11

negligently hired and/or retained Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors, including
but not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant ACWORTH.
143. Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors, including but not limited to,
12
Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant ACWORTH were unfit to perform the work for
13
which they were hired and/or retained, including in the following areas:
14
a. Enforcing California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193, which required
15
performers to use bather protection including condoms, to protect them dining th
16
production of adult ffims, including, but not limited to the May 3 shoot involving
17
Plaintiff;
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
b. Ensuring that work place safety specialist was at the May 3 shoot in order to
confirm that adequate personal protective equipment was available at the shoot;
c. Inspecting all performers for cuts, sores, and lesions during the May 3 shoot,
including Plaintiff;
d. Enforcing the Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control Plan in order to protect
Defendants' performers, including Plaintiff;
e. Maintaining appropriate health records of Defendants' performers, including STD
25
and HIV tests before the May 3 shoot commenced; and
26
f. Enforcement of the use of condoms at the May 3 shoot.
27
28
144. Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors, including but not limited to,
Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant AC WORTH did not have any training to enforce
29
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINIC.COM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
the above laws, rules, regulations, and/or policies, yet they were provided such authority by
2 KINK Defendants.
3
145. Defendants ACWORTH and KINK DEFENDANTS and/or Defendant
DARKHOLME knew or should have known that Defendants' employees, agents, and/or
contractors, including but not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant
ACWORTH, were unfit for his position and that this unfitness created a particular risk to others,
including Plaintiff.
146. In choosing to hire and/or retain Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors,
including but not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant ACWORTH, in light
10
of the facts contained herein and incorporated by reference, Defendants ACWORTH and KINK
11
Defendants and/or Defendant DARKHOLME did not act reasonably and breached their duty of
12
care to Plaintiff as a result
13
14
condoned and approved the unlawful conduct of Defendants' employees, agents, and/or
15
contractors, including but not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant
16
ACWORTH. As a result, KINK Defendants negligently hired and/or retained Defendant
17
DARKHOLME and/or Defendant ACWORTH, 'and KINK Defendants' employees, agents,
18
and/or contractors. As a result, Defendants ACWORTH and DARKHOLME also negligently
19
hired and/or retained Defendants' employees, agents, and/or contractors. In negligently hiring
20
and/or retaining Defendant ACWORTH, Defendant DARKHOLME, and KINK Defendants'
21
employees, agents, and/or contractors, KINK DEFENDANTS, and Defendant ACWORTH, and
22
Defendant DARKHOLME did not act reasonably and breached their duty of care to Plaintiff as a
23
result.
24
25
26
27
make policy and/or to 'direct a substantial portion of its business.
28
149. Defendants' negligent hiring and/or retention of Defendants' employees, agents,
30
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. IONIC.COM, et al. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and/or contractors, including but not limited to, Defendant DARKHOLME and/or Defendant
2
ACWORTH, was a substantial factor in causing damage and injury to Plaintiff. As a direct and
proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has
suffered damages in the form of physical harm when he contracted HIV while performing at the
May 3, 2013 shoot. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur significant costs for medical
treatment, medications, and all other related expenses for the treatment of his contracted illness.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

DARKHOLME and DOES 1-50.)
153. The conduct of Defendants was, and is, extreme and outrageous because Defendants
24
intentionally and recklessly violated statutes and public policies, including but not limited to,
25
California Code of Regu1ations Title 8, Section 5193, and intentionally misrepresented to
26
Plaintiff that the May 3 shoot was a condom and bather required shoot in order to induce
27
Plaintiff to perform at the shoot when Defendants knew that they would not require condoms or
28
barriers in the performance of oral sex during the shoot. Moreover, at the May 3 shoot, Plaintiff
31
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINK.COM, at el. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
JOHN DOE was forced by Defendants to sexually interact with almost every member of the
2
public. While Plaintiff was physically restrained and blindfolded, Defendant DARKIIOLME is
clearly seen on video footage forcefully pushing Plaintiff's head and mouth into the penises of
dozens of men to perform oral sex on them. None of these performers were wearing a condom
nor were any barriers used. Defendant DARHOLME was so powerfully thrusting Plaintiff's
head that Plaintiff is heard maldng gagging sounds at several points during the shoot.
154. This conduct of Defendants, and each of them, were affirmatively based on policies,
expectations and standards, that were illegal, and was done intentionally and unreasonably with
the recognition that their acts were likely to result in damages to Plaintiff in the form of mental
10
11
distress.
12
13
14
15
156. The acts of Defendants, by and through its managing agents, were done with the
16
intention to cause or with the wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing serious
17
emotional distress injuries to Plaintiff and as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
18
behavior of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered humiliation, embarrassment, mortification, severe
19
emotional distress and great and emotional suffering. The Defendants and each of them, acted
20
deliberately for the purpose of injuring Plaintiff. The acts complained of herein were occasioned
21
by the intentional acts of Defendants or those acts which were done with reckless disregard and
22
the probability of causing severe emotional distress and such infliction was a substantial factor in
23
causing damage and injury to Plaintiff as set forth below.
24
25
26
157. Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct toward Plaintiff was a substantial fitctor
in causing damage and injury to Plaintiff as alleged herein.
27
Plaintiff hag suffered damages in the form of physical harm when he contracted HIV while
28
performing at the May 3, 2013 shoot. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur significant
32
CASE NO.:
costs for medical treatment, medications, and all other related expenses for the treatment of his
contracted illness.
earnings and Medical and/or psychological treatment expenses, all within the jurisdictional limits
10
11
12

161. The aforementioned acts were committed by Defendants, and each of them, and/or by
13
14
15
16
17
Wally and maliciously, with the intent to harm, injure, vex, annoy and oppress Plaintiff and
18
19
20 ACWORTH, and DARKHOLME, consciously disregarded the rights and safety of Plaintiff and
21
22
23
24
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
/I
33
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINK.COM, et L COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
Plaintiff JOHN DOE herewith demands a jury trial on all issues.
3
4
5
PRAYER FOR RV JEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that the Court grunt her the following relief:
1. For compensatory damages according to proof;
2. For monetary damages to compensate for the emotional distress and suffered by
8
9
Plaintiff;
3. For interest on the sum of damages award;
10
4. For reasonable attorneys' fees;
11
5. For punitive damages;
12
6. For costs of suit herein incurred;
13
7. For such other and future relief as the Court deems proper.
14
15
16
Dated: April 28, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
RIBERA LAW FIRM
17
18
19
20
By:
Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN DOE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
CASE NO.:
JOHN DOE v. KINK.COM, et a.- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
EXHIBIT 2

SUM-100
SUMMONS
FOR COURT USE ONLY

POLO PARA USO E LA CORTE)
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL
DEMAJWADO);
K1NK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC; PETER
AC WORTH; VAN DARKHOLME and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
JOHN DOE
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at thiS court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selthelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. if you do not fife your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifamia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.goviselthelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The courrs lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
lAVISOl Lo ban demandado. Si no responds dentro de 30 dies, la code puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versin. Lea la infonnacin a
condnuacin.
Tiene 30 DfAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que Is entreguen esta citacien y papeles legates pare presenter una respuesta par escrito en esta
carte y tracer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una cads o una llamada teleferrica no lo protegen. Su respuesta par escrito thane que ester
en formate legal correct Si desea que procesen su case en la code. Es posible que hays un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encentrar estos formularies de la code y ms informackin en el Centro de Ayuda de las Codes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la code que le quede alas coma. Si no puede pager Is cuota de presentacien, pida at secreted de la code
que le de un formulario de exencin de page de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso par incumpihniento y la code to
podr guitar su sueldo, dinem y bienes sin raft advertencia.
Hay afros requisites legates. Es recornendable que Name a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede &mare un servicio de
remisin a abogados. Si no puede pager a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicies legates graluitos de un
programa de servicios legates sin fines de lucre. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin tines de lucre en of sitio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpbalifornia.ora en at Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.suoorte.ca.gov) o ponindose en contact con la code o el
colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la carte tiene derecho a reclamar las motes y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperacin de $10,000 6 ma's de valor rectlida mediante un acuerdo a una concesin de arbitraje en un caso de derecho
Time que
pagar of gravamen de la code antes de que Is code pueda desechar el case.
The name and address of the court is:

(El nombre y &modem de Is code es):
CASE NUMBER:
4r
(At
San Francisco Superior Court

400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la direccin ye! nmero de telfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no liens abogado, es):
415-576-1600
Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq., Ribera Law Firm, APC, 157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 94127
DATE:
Clerk, by
CLERK OF THE COURT
MEREDITH
(Fecha)
(Secretario)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010))
(Pat-a prueba de entrega de esta citatin use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (P05-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
[SEAL!
1.
1 as an individual defendant.
2.
as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
APR 2 820t5
3. 1
, Deputy
(Adjunto)
on behalf of (specify,):
under:
4.
GRIER
CCP 416.10 (corporation)

CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)
CCP 416.60 (minor)

CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
other (specify):
by personal delivery on (date):
Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judicial Council of California
SUM-100 Rev. Jut; 1.20091
SUMMONS
Code of Civil Procedure 55412.20, 465

www.courrinfaragov
EXHIBIT 3
POS-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Safe &marten anOaddress):
FOR COURT USE ONLY
Ribera Law Firm

AProfessional Corporation
157 West Portal Avenue, Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 94127
TELEPHONE no.: (415)576-1600
FAX NO. fopnonao: (415)842-0321
ELECTRONICALLY
F I LE
E-MAL ADDRESS (Opdona5
Superior Court ofCalifonne,

County OfSan Promise*
Arroemer Fort Nome): Plaintiff, JOHN DOE
06/29/2015
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SIR= r ADDRESS:
MAILING ADDRESS:
400 McCallister Street
Clerk of the Court

BY:KIMBERLY CLAUSSEN

Civil Center Courthouse - Civil
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: John Doe
Deputy Clerk
CITT AN0 ziP CODE:

BRANCH NAME:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
CASE NUMBER:
CG-C-15-545540
Kink.Com, et al
Ref. No. or FS, No.:
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
(Separate proof of service is requited for each party served.)

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action,
2. !served copies of:
a,
summons
b. 1.
.1 complaint
ED
c,
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) package
d. J
1 Civil Case Cover Sheet (served In complex cases only)
e.
cross-complaint
I other (specify documents):
f.
3. a. Party served (specify name of party as shown on documents served):
VAN DARKHOLME
b. I
Person (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person
under item 5b on whom subslituted service was made) (specify name and relationship to the party named in item 3a):
4. Address where the party was served:
157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 94127

5. 1 served the party (check proper box)
a 1-71by personal service. !personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to
(2) at (time): I tf5
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): June 22, 2015
at (time):
i left the documents listed in item 2 with or
by substituted service. On (date):
b.
in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in Item 3):
ED
(1)
(2)
(business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business
of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature co the papers.
(home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual
place of abode of the party. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(3) n (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual malting
address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. !informed
him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(4)
1 I thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served
1. . I mailed the documents on
1
at the place where the copies were left (Code Giv. Proc., 41521
I a declaration of mailing is attached.
or l
from (city):
(date):
(5)
I I attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.
Faun Adopmd for Mandatory Use

Judicial Coma of Cardbmis
POS.010 [Rev. Joraiary 1, 20071
Pap:1 oi2
Cede of CM: Procedare, 417.10
PLAINTIFF/PETTFIONER1 John Doe
CASE NUMBER:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kink.COM, et
5. c.
fl
COC-15-545540
al
by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the
address shown in item 4, by first-class mail, postage prepaid,
(2) from (city):
(1) on (date):
(3) El with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt and a postage-paid return envelope addressed
to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt.) (Code Civ. Proc., 415.30.)
to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc., 415.40.)
(4)
d.
LJ
by other means (specify means of service and authorizing code section):
Additional page describing service is attached.

6. The "Notice to the Person Served' (on the summons) was completed as follows:
as an individual defendant.
as the person sued under the fictitious name of (vaulty): True name
as occupant.
On behalf of (speci)):
under the following Code of Cive Procedure section:
is unknown to Plaintiff
El 416.10 (corporation)
415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
ED 416.20 (defunct corporation)
CD 416.60 (minor)
/1 416.30 goint stock company/association) ED 416.70 (ward or conservatee)
El 416.90 (authorized person)
E:3 416.40 (association or partnership)
ED 415.46 (occupant)
ri 416.50 (public entity)
ED other:
7, Person who served papers
a. Name: Sandra Ribero Speed, Esq. (SBN 236769
b. Address: 157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 94590
c. Telephone number: (415)576-1600
d. The fee for service was: $0
e. lam:
(1)
(2)
(3)
8.
not a registered California process server.

exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).
a registered California process server:
independent contractor.
1 owner 1 I employee
(1)
(il) Registration No.:
(iii) County:
El
n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
9,
Date:
or
I am a California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
June 22, 2015
Sandra Ribero Speed, Esq. (SBN236769

(NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERS/SHERIFF OR MARSHAL)
P05-01D rev. JaIrNery 1. 20013
Page 2 *12
EXHIBIT 4
POS-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITNOUT ATTORNEY Name, Soft earnumber, end SOW*

Ribera Law Firm
157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2. San Francisco, CA 94127*
-raspHoms NO.: (415)576-1600
FAX NO. AVM*
FOR COURT USE ONLY
ELECTRONICALLY
F I LE D
(415)342-0321
EAtAll_ ADDRESS (Opitnatl:

ATIORNEY FOR
Court of Cafffornie,
Count, Man Pftnctsce
SUperier
fame): Plaintiff, JOHN DOE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA,COUNTY OF

STREET ACORES'S:
400 McAllister Street
06/29/2015
San Francisco
Clerk of the Court

BYX.M4BERLY CLAUSSEN
MARX,* ADDRESS:

BRANCH NAME:
Deputy Clerk
MY ANO ZIP COOS
DEFENDANT)FtESPONBENT: KiTlk.0011:1,
CASE NUMSER:
CGC-I 5-545540
et al
Re. Na or File No.:

(Separate proof of service is required for each party served.)
1. At the time of service Iwas at least 18 years of age and nota party to this action.
2. I served copies of:
summons
complaint
Alternative Dispute ResotUtion (ADR) package
Civil Case Cover Sheet (served in complex cases only)
cross-complaint
other (specify documents):
3. a. Party sewed (specify name of party as shown on documents served):
KINK STUDIOS, LLC

b.
ED
Person (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person
under item 5b on whom substituted service was made) (specify name and relationship to the party named in Item 3a1:
Karen Tynan, Attorney

4.
Address where the party was served:
5.
I served the party (check proper box)

I by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to
a.
(2) at (time):
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): ce //
at (time):
11eft the documents listed in item 2 with or
by substituted service. On (date):
in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3):
(1)
of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(2) ri(home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling muse or usual
(3)
(physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing
address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. I informed
(4)
I thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served
at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ. Proc., 411,91Imailed the documents on
l a declaration of mailing is attached.
or
from (city):
(date):
attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.
(5)ri I
Pogo t of 2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judiclof Connell of Conforrie
POS-010 Mee. Sammy 2, 20071
Cade of CM! Prowl:de. 417.10
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:
John Doe
CASE NUMBER
CGC-15-545540
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kinlc.corn, et al
5. c. ED by mall and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the
address shown in item 4. by first-class mail, postage prepaid,
(1) on (date):
(2) from (city):
J with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt and a postage-paid return envelope addressed
to me, (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt) (Code Civ, Proc., 415.30)
(4) rito an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Prop., 415.40.)
(3)
by other means (speci61 means of setvice and authorizing code section):
F-1 Additional page describing service is attached.

6. The "Notice to the Person Served' (on the summons)was completed as follows:
a. 171 as an individual defendant
b.
c. fl as occupant.
d.
On behalf of (specif)"):
under the following Code of Civil Procedure section:
C:1 416.10 (corporation)
CD 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
ED 416.60 (minor)
ED 41E30 (joint stock company/association) ED 416.70 (ward or conservatee)
= 416.40 (association or partnership)
CD 415.46 (occupant)
ED 416.50 (public entity)
ED other:
7. Person who served papers
I1
a. Name: Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq. (SBN 236769)

b.
c.
d.
e.
Address: 157 West Portal Ave., Suite

Telephone number: (415)576-1600
The fee for service was: $
am:
(1)
(2)
(3)
2, San Francisco, CA 94127

a registered California process Sprier:
1-7 owner I employee El independent contractor.
(ii) Registration No.:
010 County:
8. 11511 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
or
.
n
I
am
a
California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
9
Date:
June 23, 2015

INAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERS/SKERIFF OR MARSHAL)
P05-010 pew January 1,20071
Figs 2
POS
FOR COURT USE CINY
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY Nam Siete Bar number and artiltesep

Ribera Law Firm
137 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 94127'
TELEPHONE NO.: (415)576-1600
PAX NO. (OPCond):
ELECTRON LCALLY
F I LE D
015)842-032 1
Superior Court of California,

courgy or Sari Phantasy*
L ADDliESS fopitimelp
Arromerron ererml: Plaintiff; JOHN DOE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
STMET ADDRESS:
MAILING ADDRESS:
06/29/2015
San Francisco

Civil Center Courthouse- Civil
Clerk of the Court

Deputy Clerk
CITY ANC) ZIP cone

BRANCH NAME:
CASE NUMBER:
CGC-15-545540
Kink.com, et al
Rd. Nu. or Rio No.:

1. At the time of service 1 was at least 18 years of age and note party to this action.
summons
a. I I
b. r7-1
C. ED
d.
e.
complaint
cross-complaint
other (spec16, documents):
3. a. Party served (specify name of party as shown on documents served):
KINK.COM
b.
I Person (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person
under item Sb on whom substituted service was made) (sped6, name and relationship to the party named in item 3a):


5. I served the party (check proper box)
I by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in Item 2 to the party or person authorized to
a. I
(2) at (time): 11.`115 ke\
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): 023/ SI
lekthe
documents listed in item 2 with or
at (time):
b. I I by substituted service. On (date):
In the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3):
(1)
(2)
address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. / informed
at the place where the copies were left (Code Clv. Proc., 415.20). !mailed the documents on
a declaration of mailing is attached.
or
from (city):
(date):
stating
actions
taken
first
to
attempt
personal service.
of
diligence
I attach a declaration
(3)I-I
(4)I
(5)
71
Faun Adoptad fat Mandatory User

Judd& Cound ulCaMarnla
PC045110 [Rev. January 1.20071
Retie I of 2
Coda of Cieli Proem:M.43411.M
PLAINTIFF/PEIMONER:
John Doe
CASE MASER:
CGC-15-545540
Kink.com, et al
by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents fisted in Item 2 to the party, to the
address shown in item 4, by first-class mall, postage prepaid,
5. c.
(1) on (dere):
(2) from (city):
(3) 1 with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt anci a postage-paid return envelope addressed
to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowiedgement of Receipt) (Code Civ. Proc., 415.30.)
(4) 1 to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc., 415.40.)
by other meats (specify means of service and authorizing code section):

6. The 'Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows:
a. Ld as an individual defendant.
b.1-1as the person sued under the fictitious name of (speci4j:
C.
as occupant
d. EJ On behalf of (Specify):
ED 416.10 (corporation)
ED 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
CD 416.60 (minor)
CD 416,30 (joint stock company/association) CD 416,70 (ward or conservatee)
EJ 416.90 (authorized person)
ED 416.40 (association or partnership)
0 415.46 (occupant)
= 416.50 (public entity)
0 other:
a. Name: Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq. (SEN 236769)
b. Address: 157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, Sort Francisco, CA 94127
d. The fee for service was: $
e. am:
(1)
(2)
(3)
8_
1 1
9. 1
Date:
.0.1111.11.1,

1independent contractor.
(i) ni owner ED employee 1(it) Registration No.:
(iii) County:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is bus and correct
or
Jam a California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the foregoing is true and correct
June 23, 2015

iNAME OF PERSCA WHO SERVED PAPERS/SHERIFF OR MARSHAL)
POS010 [Rev Jsall/aty 1. 2COT)
Page 2 of 2
POS
ATTORNEY OR PARTY ,ARTHOLFT ATTORNEY (Nam. Stab Bar amber, and neldions):

Ribera Law Finn
TELEPHONE NO. (415)576-1600
FM NO. (00=4:
FOR COURT ME ONLY
ELECTRON ICALLY
F ILE D
(415)842-0321

County of San Francisco
E-MAIL ADDRESS irOp.qmall:

ATTORNEY FOR (A
Plaintiff;JOHN DOE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,.COUNTY OF

STREET ADDRESS:
06/29/2015
San Francisco
Clerk of the Court

Deputy Clerk
MAILING ADDRESS:

SRMCH RAW:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONM John Doe
CFrrAND zip CODE:
CASE NUMBER:
COC-15-545540
Kink.com, et al
Re
. or No No-,

(Separate pmof of service is required far each party served.)
1. At the time of service I vies at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
2. !served copies of:
a.
summons
b.
171
1
C.
d.
e.
f.
complaint
EJ
cross-complaint
3. a. Party served (speci)' name of party as shown on documents served):
CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

b. 1.71Person (other than the party in Item 3e) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person
under item 5b on whom substituted service was made) (specify name and relationship to the party named in item 3a):

4.
5.
I served the party (check proper box)

by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed In item 2 to the party or person authorized to
a.
-5-7(2) at (time): it'a
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): (j'
3jj
b. i
at (time):
I left the documents listed in item 2 with or
I by substituted service. On (date):
In the presence of (name and title or relationship to person Indicated in item 3):
(1)
(2) CD (home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual
(3)I
(4)
(5)ED
at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ. Proc., 41.2O. I malted the documents on
or 1
a declaration of mairing is attached,
from (city):
(dale):
I attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.
P55.1 Of 2
Fwm Adoptod for Mendateey Use

Count% 01CaPtcale
p054p10 [Rm.. JellattlY 1,20011
Coda ot Civ3 Procedure. 5417,10
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:
John Doe
CASE NUMBER:
CGC-15-545540
Kink.com, et al
5. c. ni by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the
(2) from (ci4):
(1) on (date):
to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt) (Code Civ. Proc., 415.30.)
(4) Elto an address outside California welh return receipt requested. (Code Clv. Proc., 415.40.)
(3) I
by other means (speci)i means of service and authorizing code section):
ED Additional page describing service is attached.

as an Individual defendant.
a.
b. Elas the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
C.
as occupant
d. U On behalf of (specify):
415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
CD 416.10 (corporation)
17.1 41620 (defunct corporation)
416.60 (minor)
416.70 (ward or conservatee)
ED 416.30 (joint stock company/association)
416.90 (authorized person)
{:-.7.1 416.40 (association or partnership)
415,46 (occupant)
416.50 (public entity)
other:

Address: 157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 94127
Telephone number (415)576-1600
b.
c.
d.
e.
The fee for service was: $

am:
(1) r
(2)
(3)
ft.

a registered California process server
(i) ni owner ED employee Elindependent contractor.
(if) Registration No.:
(M) County:
!declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Of
9.
Date:
1 am a California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the forego!ng is true and correct.
June 23, 2015

[NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERSSHERIFF OR biARSNAL)
P S-Oft Rfl..Nnuwy 1. 2007I
Paife2of 2
POS-010
ASPORNEY DR PART/ WITHOUT AITORNEY(Neme, State Soffiuntbar, cimI Oldiftsk
FOR COURT USE ONLY

Ribera Law Firm
157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 9412T
1SLEPNONE Na:
(415)576-1600
FAXI40. irspdooNJ:
ELECTRONICALLY
(41 5)
F I LE D
2-032 1
E-MAIL ADDRESS l'OptIonal):

ATTORNEYPOR frizonkt:
Superior Court or California,

County of San Francisco
Plaintiff; JOHN DOE
SUPERIOR COURT OF cailFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco

SYREET ADDRESS:
06/29/2015
Clerk of the Court
MAURO ADDRESS:
aware) ZIP coce

artmcn Name
BYXWBEIILY CLAUSSEN
Deputy Clerk

PLAUNTIFF/PETITIONER: John Doe
CASE NUMBER:
COC-15-545540
DEFSNDANTIRESPONOENT: Kink.COM, et al
Bet No, or RN No.:
(Separate proof of service is required for each party seivecL)

1. Al the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
a.
summons
b. 171complaint
c. f:::] Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADM package
d. fljCivil Case Cover Sheet (served in compfex cases only)
e. E:1
cross-complaint
3. a. Party served (speolfy name of party as shown on documents served):
ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC

b. =I Person (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person
under item 5b on whom substituted service was made) (spari6, name and relationship to the party named in item 3a):

5. 1 served the party (check proper box)
a, 17] by personal service. I personally delivered the documents fisted in item 2 to the party or person authorized to
(2) at (time): /7 tai 3
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): C(. ax(6(date):
at
(time):
I
left
the documents listed in Item 2 with or
On
b. El by substituted Service.
in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person Indicated in item 3):
(1)Ej (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business
of the person to be served. I Informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(2) 1
(3)r--1 (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing
(4)
1 I thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents lathe person to be served
at the place where the copies were left (Code Ov. Prom, 4122), 1 marled the documents on
or I I a declaration of mailing is attached.
from (city):
(date):
(5) I
I I attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.
Page Ibi 2
Para Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judictet Council or California
Jarwery 1, 20071
P05-010
Corte 01001 Procedure, 417.10
CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/PETMONER: John Doe
CGC-15-545540
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kink.e011:1, et al
by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the
address shown in item 4, by first-class ma, postage prepaid,
(2) from (city):
(1) on (date):
to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt.) (Code Civ. Proc., 415.30.)
(4)71to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc., 415.40.)
(3)
by other means (speci)' means of service and authorizing code section):

a.
as an individual defendant.
as occupant.
On behalf of (specify):
ni 416.10 (corporation)
1.:3 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
El 416.60 (minor)
r-1 416.20 (defunct corporation)
i 416.70 (ward or conservatee)
ED 416.30 (Joint stock company/association)
ED 416.40 (association or partnership)
415.46 (occupant)
El other:
a. Name: Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq. (SON 236769)
c. Telephone number. (415)576-1600
e. lam:
L.]
r-
(1)1 /1 not a registered California process server.
independent contractor.
employee
owner
(i)
(II) Registration No.:
(Ili) County:
(2)
(3)
8.
nt
ri
l I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
or
9, ED
Date:
am a California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
June 23, 2015
Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq. (SON 236769)

(NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERSiSHERSFF OR MARSHAL)
P05.010 {Rev. January 1, 2007]
Pat, 2 or 2
P05-010
AWORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY Norm State Bvnwibecmid 8ddio:
FOR COVRT USE ONLY

Ribera Law Firm
TELEPHONE NO-;
FAX NO. memo:
(415)576-1600
ELECTRONICALLY
E.41AIL ADDRESS (OPtiva9:

ATTORNEY FOR (Nap*
STREET ADORES&

County of Sew Frentisoo
Plaintiff; JOHN DOE
SUPERIOR. COURT OF CALIFORNIA,.COUNTY OF
San Francisco
06/29/2015
Cleric of the Court
MAIM ADORESS!
BYJUME1ERLY CLAUSSEN

BRANCH NAME:
CITY AND ZIP
F I LE D
(415)842-0321
cone
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kink.COM,et
Deputy Cleric
CASE NUMBER
COC-15-545540
al
Ref. No, or Fdo
No.:

(Separate proof of service is required for each party canted.)
1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
2. I served copies of
summons
complaint
CM Case Cover Sheet (served in complex cases only)
Cress-Complaint
S. a. Party served (specify name of party as shown on documents served):
KINKMEN.0 OM
b.
FlPerson (other than the party in item 3a) sewed on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and nota person
under item 5t) on whom substituted service was made) (specify name and relation.ship to the party rained in item Sa):

4.

a. 7:1 by personal service. 1 personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to
(2) at (time): /(:
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date):
at (time):
b 71 by substituted service. On (date):
In the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3):
4,(03/6--
(1)ri(business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business
of the person to be Served. I Informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(2)
1 (home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual
place of abode of the party. I Informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(3)Li
(4)
I thereafter mailed (by first-ciass, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served
at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ. Proc., 41520). I mailed the documents on
or I
a declaration of mailing is attached.
from (city):
(date):
(5)71
Pg
Fenn Adopled
for Me ndalory Use

Jecticlat Counellof Caftan%
P05.010 [Rev. ,ienuary 1, 20071
o12
Coat CrCmi Protoerre, 5 4l7ii)
PLAI/MFF/PETITIONER:
John Doe
1CASE NumsEre
CGC-15-545540
Kink_com, et al
5. c. 11by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in Rem 2 to the party, to the
(1) on (date):
(2) from (oily):
(3)I. 1 with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt and a postage-paid return envelope addressed
(4)
to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt) (Code CM Proc., 415.30.)
1 to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Clv. Proc.. 415.40.)
by other means (specify means of service end authorizing code section):
1-1
6. The "Notice to the Person Served* (on the summons) was completed as follows:
as an individual defendant
as occupant.
On behalf of (specify):
ED 416.10 (corporation)
1:3 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
C3 416.20 (defunct corporation)
En 416.60 (minor)
= 416.30 (joint stock company/association) E] 416.70 (ward or consenratee)
1:3 416.90 (authorized person)
416.40 (association or partnership)
I:3 415.46 (occupant)
f:3 other:
ri
e.
1
(2) 1::1 exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).
(3)
employee ElIndependent contractor.
(i) 1::1 owner
(iii) County:
fa
()
lm
8.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
9. 1
Date:
or
I am a California sheriff or marshal and !certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
June 23, 2015

(NAME OF PERSON WHO SEWED PAPERS/SHERIFF OR MARSHAL)
P05.010 fRey. Jimmy 1. 20071
PageS of 2
POS 1
ATTORNEY OR PARTY InelliOUT ATTORNEY &ram Sego Seniwnb. and a
I:
FOR COURT USE OK

Ribera Law Firm
157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 9412T
TF_LEPRONE ND.: (415)576-1600
FAKNO. (CATkma7: (415)842-0321
ELECTRONICALLY
F I LE D
Superior Comrt of California;
County of Sun FrenCISCO
E-MAIL ADDRESS fOrobne.9:

ATTORNEY FOR (Name):
Plaintiff, JOHN DOE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIACOUNTY OF
sTREET ADORESS:
05/29/2015
San Francisco
Clerk of the Court

BYIUMBERLY CLAUSSEN
Deputy Clerk
MARANO ADDRESS:

8
w*:
crrr Are) ZIP CODE:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kink.COM,
CASE NUNEset:
CGC-15-545540
et al
Ret
. ReNo.:

1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and note party to this action.
summons
a
b.
complaint
C,

Civil Case Cover Sheet (server) in complex cases only)
d.
cross-complaint
e.
11 other (specify documents):
3. a. Party served (speci47 name of party as shown on documents served):
PETER AC WORTH
b. I v1 Person (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person
under item 5b on whom substituted service was made) (specify name and relationsh0 to the party named in item 34:


by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to
a t
SO4-,
(2) at (time):
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date; Ca 23
at (lime):
b. n by substituted service. On (date):
in the presence of (name and title or relationship to person indicated in item 3):
place of abode of the party. I informed him other of the general nature of the papers.
address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office berx. informed
I thereafter mailed (by -first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served
at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ_ Proc., 415321. I mailed the documents on
Or I
I a declaration of mailing Is attached.
(date):
from (city):
Pagel al 2
Form Adapted for Mandalay Use
JudicJa1 Cowell or California
P05.010 Way Janualy 1.200?)
Coda of CON Procedure, f 417.10
PLAINTIFF/PETMONER:
John Doe
CASE HUMES;
COC-15-545540
Kink.com, eta!
ni by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the
5. c.

(1) on (date):
(2) from (city):
(3)Fl with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt and a postage-paid return envelope addressed
to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt) (Code Civ. Proc., 415.30.)
(4)1-1to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ, Proc.. 415.40.)
by other means (specify means of senlice and authorizing code section):

6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows:
as an individual defendant
b. fl as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
c. fl as occupant.
F-1 On behalf of (specify):
under the following Cede of Civil Procedure section:
I= 416.10 (corporation)
13 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
416.20 (defunct corporation)
C:1 416.60 (minor)
ED 416.30 ()oint stock company/association) CJ 416.70 (ward or conservatee)
E---1 416.90 (authorized person)
=1 416.40 (association or partnership)
=1 415.46 (occupant)
1.:3 416.58 (public entity)
E3 other:
a Name: Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq. (SBN 236769)
c. Telephone number (41 5)576-1600
a lam:
a. 71
ri
(1)
(2)
(3)
1 note registered California process server.

1.1111011HE
(i) 1-1 owner
employee F-1 independent contractor.
(iii) County:
r-i
8. I 1
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct,
9.
or
I am a California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the foregoing is true and correct
Date:
June 23, 2015

(NAME OF PERSON MO SERVED PAPERS/SHERFF OR MARSHAL}
1'OS-010 (Row. Januaty 1,2007]
Page 2 a z
Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document

Filed SHEET
07/22/15 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL 1-2
COVER
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) cand rev (1/15/13)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM)
bota)jor
nAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
CyDernet ntertainment, LLC individually and erroneously sued as
Kink.com and Kinkmen.com; Kink Studios, LLC; Armory Studios, LLC;
Acworth, Peter; Karl, Hogan aka Van Darkholme
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

New York
(EXCEPT DI U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

San Francisco,
(Dv U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
State
Attomeis (Jana-mi)
Rittga ttygfirsi finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Sandra Ribera Speed

157 West Portal Ave., Suite 2, San Francisco, CA 94127 415.576.1600
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

0I
0 2 U.S. Government
Defendant
Michael T. Kennicic, CBN 132406

KENNICK & ASSOCIATES, 110 E. Wilshire, Ste. 401, Fullerton, CA
92832. See attachment for additional attorney.
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plainte
and One Box for Defendant)
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF DEF
PTF DEF
0 4 X 4
0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place
01
Citizen of This State
of Business In This State
0 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
X 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item HI)
Citizen of Another State
X2
0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
0 5
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
03
0 3 Foreign Nation
[36 [36
IV. NATURE OF SUIT lace an "X" in One Box On
. REAL PROPERTY
0 210 Land Condemnation
0 220 Foreclosure
0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
0 240 Torts to Land
0 245 Tort Product Liability
[3290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
0 310 Airplane
0 315 Airplane Product
Liability
0 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
0 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
[3340 Marine
0 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
X 360 Other Personal
Injury
0 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
0 440 Other Civil Rights
0 441 Voting
[3442 Employment
0 443 Housing/
Accommodations
0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
[3448 Education
PERSONAL INJURY
0 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
0 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
0 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
0 370 Other Fraud
0 371 Truth in Lending
0 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
[3625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
0 690 Other
PROPERTY RIGHTS
0 820 Copyrights
0 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark
[
SOCIA1
A BO 1-t
0 710 Fair Labor Standards

Act
0 720 Labor/Management
Relations
0 740 Railway Labor Act
0 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
[3790 Other Labor Litigation
S , [3791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
PRISONER PETITE
Habeas Corpus:
0 463 Alien Detainee
0 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
0 530 General
0 535 Death Penalty
Other:
0 540 Mandamus & Other
0 550 Civil Rights
0 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

0 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
N I CCRITY
0 861 HIA (1395f0

0 862 Black Lung (923)
0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
0 864 SSID Title XVI
0 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
0 871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
0 5
OTHER:STATUTES
BANKRUPT( Y
FORFEITLREJPENALTY
TORTS
CONTRACT
0 110 Insurance
0 120 Marine
0 130 Miller Act
0 140 Negotiable Instrument
0 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
0 151 Medicare Act
DI 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
0 160 Stockholders' Suits
0 190 Other Contract
0 195 Contract Product Liability
0 196 Franchise
CA
0 375 False Claims Act

0 400 State Reapportionment
0 410 Antitrust
0 430 Banks and Banking
0 450 Commerce
0 460 Deportation
0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
0 480 Consumer Credit
0 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
0 890 Other Statutory Actions
0 891 Agricultural Acts
0 893 Environmental Matters
0 895 Freedom of Information
Act
0 896 Arbitration
0 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
0 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
LNEMGRATION
0 462 Naturalization Application
0 465 Other Immigration
Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box On4t)

13 1 Original
Proceeding
I.
0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict

Litigation
Another District
Reopened
(sPec))
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
IS( 2 Removed from

State Court
0 3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
28 USC section 1441(b)

CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Plaintiff alleges personal injury in the course and scope of his employment with Defendants.
VIL REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
nils
ISA CLASS ACTION

CHECK IF
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
(See instructions):
DATE
07/22/2015
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil L.R. 3-2)
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes 13 No
JURY DEMAND:
DEMAND $
vn5roe
DOCKET NUMBER
JUDGE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
_
t2 SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND I-1%4N JOSE E EUREKA
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ATTACHMENT
Defendants' attorneys:
KENNICK & ASSOCIATES

110 E. WILSHIRE AVE., SUITE 401
FULLERTON, CA 92832
TELEPHONE: (714) 992-6600
FACSIMILE: (714) 992-6602
MICHAEL T. KENNICK, CBN 132406
mkennick@kennicklaw.com
JOHN C. ELLIS, CBN 217813
jellis@kennicklaw.com
KAREN TYNAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
1083 VINE STREET, #201
HEALDSBURG, CA 95448
TELEPHONE: (707) 395-0062
FACSIMILE: (707 526-1716
KAREN TYNAN, CBN 217775
dktynan@comcastnet

John Doe vs.

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

John Doe vs.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 8

KENNICK & ASSOCIATES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LLC, erroneously sued as KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; CYBERNET

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 8

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, erroneously sued as KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET

Action, naming KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; KINKMEN.COM; CYBERNET

On June 23, 2015, defendants, CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,

erroneously sued as KINK.COM; KINK STUDIOS, LLC; CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT,

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is timely since it is filed

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 8

Citizenship of the Parties

Plaintiff alleges complete diversity from all Defendants.

is a resident and citizen of the State of New York. Complaint, It 1.1

Defendant CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC is allegedly "a Limited

Liability Company registered to do business in the State of California...CYBERNET maintains a

Defendant CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC erroneously sued as

Defendant CYBERNET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC erroneously sued as

Defendant ARMORY STUDIOS, LLC is allegedly "a corporation duly organized

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 4 of 8

Defendant PETER AC WORTH allegedly "works and resides in San Francisco,

California. Complaint, 1110.

Plaintiff's original Complaint alleges causes of action against Defendants for 1)

Negligence, 2) Negligence Per Se, 3) Intentional/Fraudulent Misrepresentation, 4) Civil

Plaintiff specifically alleges that he was a model hired by the Defendants

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 5 of 8

Plaintiff alleges punitive damages. Complaint, at Prayer for Relief

-5NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 6 of 8

DEFENDANTS DEMAND JURY TRIAL

DATED: July 22, 2015

-6NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 7 of 8

[X] VIA EMAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION [CM/ECF SYSTEM]: Based on the United

/s/ JOHN C. ELLIS

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 8 of 8

Attorneys for PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE

-8NOTICE OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1-1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 55

Case 3:15-cv-03377-JCS Document 1-1 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 55

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nfl7E

Sandra Ribera Speed, Esq. (236769)

Sall EMCiSCO, California 94127

TELEPHONE NO.: joHN DoE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CargrAptINTY Of

CITY AND ZIP CODE:

San Francisco 94102

John Doe v. Kink.corn, et al.

Complex Case Designation

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).

1:::1 Insurance coverage (18)

[kr Fraud (16)

Intellectual property (19)

Other employment (15)

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation

Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)

El Construction defect (10)

71Environmental/Toxic tort (30)

Insurance coverage claims arising from the

I 1Enforcement of judgment (20)

El Other complaint (not specified above) (42)